Photography is the incentive I need to get me out of the house, walking in the real world, looking for images whilst breathing in the air, stopping for a coffee, and so on. It's not just about images, it's about the hunt, the searching, the looking..... the time spent focussed on it all. To use a Fishing analogy, it's possible to go and buy a fish, rather than stand in a River for 8 hours, trying to catch one, but it turns out that it's not really about the fish. Time spent in front of my PC, generating images that never existed, is time wasted for me. I use 1% of Photoshop and Lightroom (Basic lighting, contrast ..etc). I never even use Layers. This may result in people valuing real photography more ..... like Vinyl records. People are getting tired with artificial content I think. Real photos, printed on real paper.... that's where it's at, like standing in a River all day .... catching your own fish... or not.
Yes, Humberto, I agree. Your fishing analogy is good. And, yes, Sizmic makes a fair point. Commercial work is a different topic. Forgive me for being judgmental here, but commercial work has always been a lie to sell false happiness. And now we can lie faster and better. And yes, lots of photographers have made good money doing this and I'm happy that artists have earned a living. But, obviously, I don't personally care about commercial work. When Christopher Nolan wanted to crash a 747 into a building in Tenet, he didn't use CGI. He bought a 747 and crashed it into a building. No doubt the CGI version would have been "better" and "more awesome." I think for Nolan, and for his audience, it mattered that we were seeing something that physically happened. For his upcoming film Oppenheimer, Nolan is again not using CGI for atomic bomb blasts. IDK how he's doing it, but it will be something physical photographed. For the photography that I do care about: Photojournalism and Documentary, manufactured images don't even make sense. An image of a Guatemalan refuge family detained at the US-Mexico border by United States Border Patrol Agents doesn't mean anything if it's AI generated. As you say with vinyl records, perhaps all the AI will foster a Renaissance in straight photography. Like you, I don't use PS at all, I only use LR for Contrast, Color Balance, Recover Shadows & Hilights, etc. But to be honest, I do tend to add a lot of contrast and often recover a lot of hilights/shadows - so how "real" my images are may also be debated.
Nope - people want to look at an interesting picture for 5 seconds and then move on to the next one. Create the art FOR YOURSELF and you will always be rewarded. But you can't convince the public that artificial content is somehow inferior. They don't look at it that way.
I agree with everything you say regarding photography. I also understand that it will be another creative tool for commercial uses. The problem is, it's so easy to do that clients will be able to create for themselves rather than rely on the expertise and creativity of photographers.
I think this only changes two things: How fast you can modify a picture and who can modify it. Couse a person with expertise can do the same but it will took a lot of time depending what do you want to do. With this new feature almost everyone can do a modification. The biggest difference, in my opinion, is that brings Photoshop closer to the masses.
I disagree here for a simple reason: Most of togs that really know PS are xorking with macros and actions as their starting point, ease in the process. So the gain in time consumption is not certain.
I am a fairly new amateur photographer. I ordered two of your books (Stunning Digital Photography and Lightroom) and have joined the Facebook group. While I can (sort of) understand the want or need for this type of technology advancement, it seems to undermine everything a photographer stands for. I enjoy the personal satisfaction I feel when I get a beautiful photograph and I also enjoy learning from my mistakes with photographs that don’t turn out so good. It would seem to me that this type of photo enhancement is sort of like cheating or taking the easy way out. That isn’t why I started learning photography.
Tony & Chelsea I have just received your 225 page “Stunning Digital Photography” book and although I’m only on page 8, my knowledge of what real photo creating ideas is all about has just sky rocketed 10 fold. Absolutely incredible knowledge of what we really should be thinking about, but never do, because we’ve never been taught. Seriously, I'm only on page 8 and I’ve recovered my outlay already of this absolutely priceless book already, which means the remaining 217 beautifully illustrated put together pages are absolutely free and I never use that word loosely. Tony and Chelsea, thank you millions for the thousands of hours it must of taken you to create this outstanding book, which I know I will gain incredible knowledge from and obviously I will be purchasing more books from yourself as time goes by, thank you both millions
It will never replace the rush you get from taking real photos. I like the challenge of getting near perfect photos with vintage gear. It's not about doing it the easy way for me.
@@vaidotasdarulis Oh mine do. They get so stoked when we nail a difficult shot in-camera. It’s all high-fives and huge grins. None of them are impressed by this tedious AI bullshit. Depends on the clients and the photographer perhaps.
It's awesome that you love the challenge. For people not as advanced (like me) it's a good option to remove that palm tree in the background of someone's head in an otherwise perfect shot, etc. But it won't make taking pictures any less appealing for me.
Five years from now, we'll be sitting in our rockers on the front porch, bitching about "those damm kids and their AI Images. Back in the day, I shot straight outta the camera digitally the way Tony Northrop intended." Now you know how film photographers felt at the start of the digital era.
I believe it's an awesome tool for people who work with graphics. Instead of wasting time downloading PNGs, it's great to just be able to type what you need. I also don't think it's the end for landscape photographers. They could always choose to mention whether they've used generative fill or not. Besides, a picture isn't always about composition only, but also about the narrative. I love a good story behind every picture.
I'm a graphic designer who has been using PS since V.3 (that's version 3 not CS3) and the new generative fill is amazing. I dabble in photography a bit (mostly products). I can do in seconds what I would often spend many hours doing - and it does it better! Extending a background is seamless to the point of 'no-one could tell'. I also took a fairly complex Stock Photo of a woman pruning a fruit tree and asked it to replace her collared striped pattern shirt with lime-green t-shirt and it basically did it in seconds; I then added a few additional fill layers to fix up smaller sections that didn't quite look right and I had an image, that with only a few small additional edits, would be 100% passable for a full page print advert. The fact that it adds the generative fills as masked layers is a huge bonus for editing workflow. Amazing stuff, while at the same time, the implications of these AI tools to subvert people's perception of reality are terrifying...
nope - never be able to recreate the moments we capture. i agree AI looks good - and works if there’s something needing a touch up etc… but people need and will continue to want their photo taken. portraits, weddings, music, dance, actual events. AI is here to stay but photography is going NOWHERE.
Been using the AI Remove tool just to remove imperfections on some images such as a hole in a leaf or something. I am very impressed. I also used the Denoise AI which takes awhile to complete but is very very good. These sorts of tools are game changers for me personally. This new AI thing though? I have played around with it for an hour and while its amazing it rememinds me of mid 00's photoshop where people were fooled by obvious photoshop edits to the point they would question your images "Was it photoshop'd".
I'm very concerned about A.I. destroying professions and especially "commoditizing" creative professions of all kinds like never before. I comfort myself that someone always has to capture raw video or photos but I see stock photography being the first casualty of this new technology. In broader society I'm very concerned of the flood of fraud and illegal hacking of all sorts of information that's sure to come and will be very hard to control. This is not a "disruptive" technology - it's a nuclear bomb to our information society.
I've been waiting to hear from you about this. Hope there's more from you on this topic. My first thought was how many jobs, revenue or income streams will be lost. I think it will speed up the work flow. At this point I'm still trying to wrap my brain around this. I think we all knew this was inevitable and is here to stay.
I just used it an hour ago for a client image shot in a carpark. I replaced the carpark with a beach at sunset, then made the image 50% wider and taller, and it was perfect. Amazing!
I thing little adding is what many people are okay with. But if you generate something you have never seen before with your very own eyes, you will get bored very fast, because a real photographer wants to tell a story behing a picture. And what if the photographer does not know the story? Maby even people will get bored of all this artificial things in the future. Nice, that they are there, but i want my marriage beeing real: I WANT THAT FEELING OF PHOTOGRAPHY!
I am wholeheartedly dedicated to embracing this technology. Since the mid-70s, I have been deeply engrossed in the realm behind the camera, and my ardor for it remains unwavering. I perceive the skills, equipment, and technology as mere instruments. Though some may misuse them, this applies to every facet of life. I will persist in venturing to different locations and capturing shots, even if I could reproduce the same image from the comfort of my home.
Honestly the decision is up to the photographer, is it a little more "right now" then photography was a decade ago.... definitely, but the having the ability doesn't mean one has to use it for everything or even at all. The first thing I thought of when I seen this beta feature was the countless photos I could have salvaged with the help of the AI features, not just generating new items etc, but even just the ability to fix minor inconsistencies, plus there is the improvement on object removal which is a true benefit.
First, this is scary in that it is so good we can no longer be sure that any image we look at is "real." Second, as an amateur who wants to edit photos to make them more true to what I actually experienced, I can see only limited but really valuable uses for this. For example, my standards of "real" include eliminating people from scenes because, in my mind, I could have waited for them to move and their removal doesn't change what is actually visible in the scene. However, I can understand why others, including news photographers, would not countenance such an edit. Another example is removing distracting elements that, I justify in my mind, I could have physically removed (had I had the right and ability) such as traffic signs, wires, and trash. Again, that may cross the line for others. I cannot see me using this to add anything that wasn't there (such as a beautiful sailboat to a sunset scene) or to expand a photo with elements that the AI creates.
I have been one Adobe's Community Experts for fourteen years now, and I can tell you no other new Photoshop feature has generated as much interest as Generative Fill, on the Adobe forums. Not even close. I worked a commercial photographer for many years, but rarely use my cameras nowadays. Instead I think of myself as an illustrator and compositor, so when Adobe's Firefly became available I was depressed and sad that the skills I have developed using over a lifetime would become redundant and anyone could do what I can do the first time they used a computer to generate images. Since then, people like Jesus Ramirez and Colin Smith (Photoshop Training Channel, and Photoshop Cafe) have demonstrated clever ways to use Generative fill and I now feel that I still have an advantage. What has really surprised me is how much use I am getting out of Gen Fill and Firefly. I am using them as an alternative to stock images because I can closer to my vision using Ai, and it is not costing me anything. In fact I used Gen Fill and Firefly five times in a recent project. Colin has even shown us how to automate Gen fill to build up a large area in 1024 X 1024 pixel squares to overcome the pixelation issue Gen Fill has. One thing for certain sure is that there's no stopping it, so we have to work at making best use of it.
It is both exciting and scary, imagine the impact of an image of foreign battleships approaching statue of liberty, or military planes over an Eiffel tower etc. One thing worth mentioning is plenty of people are doing it anyway they just had to learn the skill like you mentioned, now it's just available to anyone (with Adobe subscription). The thing that always annoy me is that people will not admit it's a CGI, they'll try to convince others that "it actually happened".
I'm certainly not interested in adding AI generated content assembled from Adobe stock photographs. But, when I went back and used generative AI to remove distracting elements that had taken me 20 minutes or more to remove using Photoshop's other tools, AI did the job in a few seconds: without providing AI with any instructions, I was able to replace the legs of a couple of audience members in the corner of an angled shot of musicians at a workshop with exactly aligned wood panel flooring that blended in perfectly with the rest of the flooring in the shot. AI processing will make it much easier and quicker to process photos, but what I'm trying to achieve in the end will be the same.
This will lead to a mess, eventually. There will be visual objects added to images where the source license cause legal problems, or at least moral ones. In some future when a high proportion of all images are using generative fill, the sailboats and geese we will use to fake a another seascape will be fake already. If noone bothers to make images of real things, what should be used to generate those fills the empty areas needs?
It'll be interesting to see how they manage the "objects" that can be selected for insertion, presuming that they will have a limited "free stock" but then a paid option where known, identifiable and highly desirable objects can be monetised as a user pays option. Irrespective of our views and opinions this is the future.
Thank you for sharing this video Tony. I think it will be up to the individual photographer. In my opinion it is an ethics question. I enjoy getting out there and taking the pictures
I just got over my amazement at the PS AI. I tried to add an old biplane and a single-engine airplane, and it couldn’t do that. It couldn’t add a sailing ship, a tall ship, or a modern container cargo ship. I extended canvas and it outlined the extension and the smaller original portion. It did a great job , however, as a very fancy healing tool, so woohoo to that. It removed sticks from in front of a bird but left blur wounds and a disconnected claw that wouldn’t hurt a Facebook, picture, but forget printing it large.
This has been an issue every since I saw the options that could remove a fence for example from in front of a subject. It's not subtracting a fence, it's adding to the subject/person. Cameras have not been true to life for a long time already, this is just a small step forward, not a revolution. That doesn't mean it's not scary, though.
Just as we can usually only tell that our food is organic by the lable and our trust in the vendor; Just as we can only tell that the antiques or art that we buy are authentic by the provenance paperwork and our trust in the seller; We can now only tell that photos are authentic by the documentation provided and our trust in the source. I feel this may actually make "honest" photography even more valuable. I have never trusted the authenticity of commercial or stock photography anyway. So that isn't going to change.
I’ve tried the beta and found it to be impossible to get exactly what I wanted added to the image. Maybe Adobe should add a link to their stock images and give me a selection of items to choose from. Also it distorts most images. I asked it to put a martini in my subjects hand, and it put the drink in a hurricane glass with whipped cream on top.
It generates images from stuff thats already out there on the net. Professional photographers make the best money from things that aren't out there and never will be. Wedding photos, portraits, new fashion creations, new products for sale. It will kill stock photography but that never made serious money for photographers. It won't affect hobby photographers because they get paid in satisfaction, not dollars. It will kill competitions, but that's probably a good thing because they reward one type of creativity at the expense of all others.
It' funny to see the AI generate new objects. Am I the only one that recognises a tank in this boat 1:33 ? The second yacht is also a wierd one, you would associate the flybridge (topdeck) with a motor yacht since this tall structure would interfere with the sail. It might exist but it would be very uncommon to combine a mast with a flybridge. However, if you're not into boats, I don't think you would notice (I'm not into birds, maybe it is uncommon for these birds to form a flock, etc.).
sometimes the generative fill gets it perfect the first time (like if there's a blurry forest in the background with utility poles - removes utility pole seamlessly). Other times it struggles so badly even when it seems so simple - I extended someone's foot since the pic cut it off and it took me 30 minutes to get AI to provide quality looking shoes that doesn't warp the subjects' feet
As a hobbyist, this is discouraging. I no longer feel motivated to wake uo early in the morning to get that shot or travel far away to photograph a temple. Anyone can do it on their bed using a laptop and i find myself not really interested in scrolling through Instagram to be amazed by beautiful pictures anymore. My mind has dismissed everything as being fake. Btw, it's this new technology that is making me sell my expensive equipment such as 1.2 lenses..fake bokeh apps...high megapixel camera.. because of upscaling software.
I see this being a rocketship tool for advertising agencies creating content for a campaign which usually needs comping things in or out. Simply means another race to the bottom in terms of costing. Luckily, I think, based on a couple of examples, there is so much marketing potential to be had on BTS content.
what comes to my mind is the analogy of the iron. It can be used for a plow and a sword. Since then, every technical invention for good has been a less good one
My photography will not change. I do make pictures for me and capture what is there, wait for the right moment, have fun, experience nature. My wife and me did a several day desert trip, it is the experience that count, the heat, the sandstorm, even the night with the thunderstorm, the Milky Way, the quietness. No one can create that on screen. I see one good thing, all the traveling to the “special selfie spots” may end if anyone can post it by a click it is nothing special anymore. 😀
This is like the very beginning of computational photography. Nobody in the photography business understood the magnitude of it, until we had it in front of our clients and: oh boy! They couldn’t tell the difference between an iPhone shot and a Nikon D850 Lightroom finely post processed picture. My guess? This is yet another step forward simplifying the storytelling process of photography. Digital artists will blend with photographers, becoming one united job field.
iPhone cannot replace sports photography, that’s just one example and there will always be a need for accurate reporting and authenticity - you can’t create someone’s weddings photos using computational photography
This scares me too... But at the same time, I'm sure landscape *painters* had a lot of opinions on Ansel Adams when he started. So did film photographers when digital came out. I choose to see it with poise and believe that true art will eventually prevail. Will this kill photography as a job? Probably. But the art? Not sure... There are still painters around after all right?...
As most have said in one way or another, for the photographer it’s about the experience or journey with the reward being a wonderful captured moment - that actually existed. For someone just looking at someone’s work they likely won’t care that much. I do think there needs to be some way of verifying that an image someone is looking at is AI or consists of AI generated elements which may not reflect the actual scene when captured. As Tony stated, people had to plan and wait for everything to come together to capture an image. Now, far too often, even a captured image is over-edited in post to where it hardly resembles the original ho-hum scene. I’m not a big fan of that either as to me it’s a bit of a cheat IMO. I would hope that people care about whether someone truly captured a moment in time that really existed, especially if only briefly, as opposed to generating one. One is the art of the photographer capturing a moment forever and the other is painting on a digital canvas whatever someone’s imagination desires. To me, there’s nothing special about the latter as it can be created and changed at will especially with the ease at which it’s able to be done today. So, do people want to look at a photographer’s work or a painter’s work? I think at the very least they should know what it is they are looking at and/or admiring.
Very cool tool. I’m an architectural photographer just got a ton of edit requests from my client. Some edits are very difficult some are easy. Generative fill can do most but what it does is create a weird blur around the AI generated image such as a tree of the background is too blurry. There will be times that this is great, but there will be other times where a physical clone or healing brush will Produce higher quality pixel results, until maybe version 30 of Beta 😂
I was initially alarmed. When a photo looked too good, we used to say "Photoshopped". But when they all look "too good" (and they will), will anyone care? In circles where it matters, photographers should still be required to produce the "back of camera" RAW still (or negative) for authentication.
It will help and hurt. At first will help but as more people get access to this tool, photographers will be phased out to an extent. Most people can't tell the difference between an iphone 5 picture and my Nikon Z9 pics, so that says many things.
Yes I did a whole video on this. It is crazy. Apparently Adobe scrape their own stock image library for these so technically they are not stealing others photos
Nice video. I am not surprised by the new technology and fully expect even more changes. For years, I have been telling my friends and students that you should never, ever trust any photograph you see. It was true when Ansel was dodging and burning and it's true today.
I agree with your comment although I think the degree to which it applies is exponentially greater with AI than it was with the tools Ansel had. At least with Ansel you know the components of the scene are real even if it’s was enhanced.
I can see why for a photographer this feature is 'scary' but for for a photo editor in a printing company, this AI is godsend. Everyday I got photos sent in wrong print ratio, removing or adding objects and so on. I've tried the new Generative Fill and I'm blown away by how much faster I can finish my work. Up to 50% I would say. That's HUUUUGE! Can't wait for the final release
I might be just learning something that others been knowing but I just learned I could hook my a7iii to my phone and send photos directly to lightroom from my camera. I thought that was an awesome thing
Yes (assuming that Adobe is OK with that). Because the "generative fills" are natively AI generated items, i.e. unique and never seen before, i.e. they are not cut-outs from other existing photos.
My desire is portrait photography, the Dylan Patrick/Rafal Wegiel style. After toying with this for just a few minutes I am in love with replacing the background in portraits. I can see taking photos in studio and then seamlessly remaking the background a busy urban setting with motion blur
That defeats the purpose of calling yourself a photographer. if you have to EDIT the image, you're now a graphic designer. Why even take photos of people? snag them from online, stick a background on it, DONE this is 'your photo'. Its like when people take Macro pics of dead bugs and post it with a signature... HA! SO CREATIVE AND JAW BROPPING.
I feel camera manufacturers can provide some way of authentication on an image that's not changeable by Photoshop or other apps with generative AI. This might make sure that photographers who don't use generative AI can easily claim it.
I thought the same, maybe put encrypted information in the metadata. I think the camera manufacturers will have to do something, because their sales will be affected.
HI CHELSEA & TONY !!! This Is The End of Photography As We Know It. We Don't Need Any More Expensive Photography Gear..... I Just Took a Photo With My 16 Years Old 8 Megapixel Sony Camera.......And Guys !!!!! I Was Blown Away With I Was Able to Do.... Tomorrow I Am Going to Sell to MPB Cameras Everything I Have → $ 7900 Worth of Sony and Nikon Cameras. [ and Lenses ] Absolutely INSANE. Have Fun ! Fernando
I see most of people commenting here missing the point, if people get flooded with super images they just worth less, will be no demand anymore, so will get so cheap to produce all this things and will destroy completely photography, first photographers don't get any money anymore, don't make picture then ai haves no new reference images anymore and will be a giant copy paste, same will happen to all other categories design music, music artist will also loose there jobs will be a flood of great music made by ai, we humans can't compete in anything with ai in future, future lol 6-12 months, will destroy everything, if no musicians anymore will be no concerts, no museums all dead, my vision is like this because I know well how people with influence like to make things, we will get world with so many homeless people and some few so rich, and its not far away, ai should be banned from most of the things should be a help for things we should improve like health and other good things, but throwing it in to everything will just make humans obsolete, I saw people talking that new jobs will be created I really would love to hear a single one, that's not like previous tech evolutions, ai is a replacement of human not a evolution of tech, what previous made us human special was the ability to think and adapt to different situations, ai does the same only in a second, for people which think that's great and will bring anything good to humanity you wrong.
In its current state it works surprisingly well for practical use. I did a photoshoot the other day with someone that brought only one outfit. A suit jacket with jeans and sneakers. I was able to change his shoes to dress shoes and pants to a suit pants. Now I have a second look.
but the one with the only suit told a nice story and would be a talking point....now from what you said i wounldnt look twice at said photo.....but the one with the sneaks and jeans i would think about that one for sometime wondering what the story is behind that one....just my 2 cents here
@@tinyhomeliving2024 Yes, their outfit actually fit their personality quite well. They're a radio personality and will be the host of an event. The shoot was on a white background with the purpose of being composited into marketing material, so just being able to create options out of nothing is amazing.
Ill be using this to communicate ideas for theme park designs withiut making them in 3d. Really specific use case that doesnt threaten professional photogrphy/photo editing.
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 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.
Can you integrate a specific product to the image. For example, if you had a second image of a hat. Could it manipulate that hat to be placed on her head.
Great video! What are the legal rights for changing someone else’s photos that you have bought? I’m running into this question all the time now when using this new tool and you are able to instantly change an original photo with little effort and amazing results. For example from portrait to landscape mode.
I can see the benefits for some types of photography and agree it’s a game changer. However as a landscape and dark sky photographer who runs workshops am I concerned? Not on the slightest. The reason being yes I could create fake images that look amazing however I would not have been there or it would not be a true representation. Which is the whole point. For me it is the experience of being out with the camera, understanding the conditions and planning to be in the right place at the right time. That is what my clients pay me for as well. They want to experience Mother Nature at her best. AI may be amazing but it will never be able to replace the real thing- well for now anyway!
You'll never be able to get a real image of a memory in your life that was never photographed... and that's where photography has its roots. Capturing memories that actually happened. Whether it be that football game you went to with your dad, or that time you broke your arm at school, your graduation day, your wedding, your birthday, your vacation, your first trip on an airplane, the first days of your childrens' lives, an NBA game, that time the entire family showed up for thanksgiving dinner, that xmas where the house burnt down, the crazy amount of snow you had to shovel that one blizzard, or the puppy you met along your hike. The time you got in an automobile accident, or the time you went panning for gold with your uncle and found a nugget worth 150$!. That is after all, what photography is all about... capturing memories. AI, will not be able to show you any of the above, unless the pictures already exist. What AI can do, is manipulate those pictures better than any tool we've ever had available to us. We still need people to take the pictures and make them available for AI to plunder and manipulate in creating something new. It's a new age in image manipulation and creation, but camera's aren't going anywhere anytime soon.
Nothing changed in the notion of a "Photo - Shop" except speed and ease. Photographs are light recordings, not creative composites of crops of light recordings. We need this delineation to help in public discernment of what we're looking at. Otherwise the slippery slope to abuse of representation for fun and profit is too steep and will, as it is massively this very second that I write this sentence, be exponentially abused to deceive with these new AI based technologies.
It's crazy! But I have mixed feelings about it. I'm not happy in a Photographer perspective... because if I were a photographer, a photo is just what I freeze in that moment I took the photo. If I added things that weren't there when I took the picture, then it'd be something that makes the picture unreal. I wouldn't like it. But in a creative perspective, outside the photographic realm, it has a great potential for inspiration. When I do use Photoshop to create stuff for myself or friends, I use Google to find things I need and then I take my time to mix them into my idea. But with this feature, everything is so straighforward and easy.
So on any of our web sites, we'll now have to put a disclaimer: "No Photoshop AI Used." Kind of like the foods in our supermarkets, with "No Added Sugar," or "All Natural," or "No GMO" or whatnot.
I think it can be helpful, for example when you have bird where it's wings are slightly out of frame. However, there were times I noticed immediately where it didn't look right, when you were generating how the model looked there were some weird things happening, especially with the glasses her nostrils suddenly flared open more. The lips looked especially fake once they were applied. So I think if you go too far it will start looking fake. I can see using it to fix small parts of an image.
I see this as a tool for some photographers who need to modify their pictures. For me I use light room and photo shop to make some minor adjustments to my pictures.
This is great! Photography without having to go outside! So cool - never miss an episode of RHONJ while eating Cheeto’s and calling yourself a Professional Landscape Photographer. You could win Landscape Photography contests without ever getting dirt on your Nike’s.
I've been using the new generative fill feature and it does what I've always wanted Photoshop to do, without hours and hours of obscure editing. It's a bit mind boggling, but very useful. However I am sad that they're removing the option to render 3D lighting effects. That was the main reason I used Photoshop over Lightroom before, but now this new feature is a game changer.
The joy of capturing a scene in its “natural state “ - real clouds, lighting, mood, etc. - outweighs the short term emotional “fix” of creating a super-enhanced AI image a hundred fold.
I understand what you mean. I would love the ability to easily merge two images taken close together so that the image is still “real” But just the perfect timing of all elements (if that makes sense
Every photo we see in the future will beg the question, was this created by AI or a photographer? I personally wouldn’t hang one of my photos on the wall if I knew key parts of the image were AI generated. I would feel like a fraud.
It seems like the perspective and lighting didn’t match. For example, things in the distance should go blue and hazy. But I’m sure it will improve and be undetectable soon.
It's called, collage, if you took all the pictures, yourself, then aslong as you say it's how you generated it, then what's the problem ? If you don't admit how it was generated then it, demeans, the art of photography, probably to a point where it has very little real value.
You're quite right to be very suspicious of this, Tony. The old adage, "Seeing is believing." will now be a dispensable notion. Ultimately, the image will be cheapened to the point of irrelevance. Everything becomes a mere trope. Adobe: Just because one can do such a thing doesn't necessarily mean that it should be done.
I think we are already in a similar situation for most people. There is no photo I can make, that hasn't been done better by someone else already. That's true for almost anyone on any topic. However, my goal isn't to make the best photo anyone ever did. My goal is to make the best photo I can make, given my personal restrictions. For example I do mostly travel photography, but I don't want to carry a heavy bag. I also don't have the time to wait for perfect conditions and I'm simply not a professional. So naturally that restricts the type and quality of the photos I can possibly make. What I want is a personal record of my journey to look back on and I'm happy when I make a good photo for that. That's it. Now with the help of AI I can improve my photos afterwards. Maybe make a mediocre photo better or a good one great. But that's nothing new. You could do that decades ago with photoshop already, it was just more difficult and took more time and knowledge. Most of the photos we get to see are already heavily modified. It's not considered "cheating" to adjust colors and lighting, even if the end result doesn't resemble the actual conditions at all. Is it cheating to remove power lines or specks of dust to make a photo better in post-processing? Does it really make a difference, if someone personally used filters and skill or if an AI does it? I'd argue, that even generating content and adding stuff doesn't change that. If it's the end result that counts, then the way you got there doesn't really matter. For me as a viewer, it makes no difference (usually), if a photo was made with considerable effort, or if an AI generated it. What is important, however, is the story behind the photo, it's purpose. That purpose is different wether we are talking about wedding photos, landscape photography, ads or press photos. In some cases AI can add to or even replace real photographers, in others it can't. What AI also doesn't have is taste and style. It can generate photos for a certain taste in a specific style, but it's still the users choice what that should be and to select the end result. Even a general AI with it's own taste and style wouldn't be better than humans at photography, because in the end it's a matter of personal taste what speaks to someone.
As a wedding photographer I kind of imagine that it can help me add sky’s without having a problem or add trees in empty fields but if you are landscape photographer or wildlife photographer take pictures of trees and some birds and your local Facebook group will be ecstatic 🤣🤣🫣
I would like to see Adobe have the information written into the file data that says "AI generated" when the filter is used. And make it non erasable from the file data.
Well, it's really great. It is excellent for those without any photo editing knowledge. For professional photographers, I don't think they'll need this unless they find some new option in this program that actually may be helpful. As for me, I don't think it's cool to modify a photo like this. Editing to make it perfect is completely one thing. But seeing something that is completely different. This is kind of the easiest level for everyone. Of course, a lot of people may like it. I prefer the manual way.
Very interesting, thank you. I'm particularly interested in the hardware implications of AI. Why take full frame when almost all aspects of photo quality can be improved by using a relatively cheap computer program? Thanks, Tony.
Photoshop now does what we as kids imagined what Photoshop did xD
haha that is SPOT ON
Yuo! 😅
. . . and what so many still imagine photoshop does.
so true
hehe yes
Photography is the incentive I need to get me out of the house, walking in the real world, looking for images whilst breathing in the air, stopping for a coffee, and so on.
It's not just about images, it's about the hunt, the searching, the looking..... the time spent focussed on it all.
To use a Fishing analogy, it's possible to go and buy a fish, rather than stand in a River for 8 hours, trying to catch one, but it turns out that it's not really about the fish.
Time spent in front of my PC, generating images that never existed, is time wasted for me. I use 1% of Photoshop and Lightroom (Basic lighting, contrast ..etc). I never even use Layers.
This may result in people valuing real photography more ..... like Vinyl records. People are getting tired with artificial content I think.
Real photos, printed on real paper.... that's where it's at, like standing in a River all day .... catching your own fish... or not.
I hear you……but for those of us that make our entire living from our photography…………
Good analogy 👍
Yes, Humberto, I agree. Your fishing analogy is good. And, yes, Sizmic makes a fair point. Commercial work is a different topic. Forgive me for being judgmental here, but commercial work has always been a lie to sell false happiness. And now we can lie faster and better. And yes, lots of photographers have made good money doing this and I'm happy that artists have earned a living. But, obviously, I don't personally care about commercial work.
When Christopher Nolan wanted to crash a 747 into a building in Tenet, he didn't use CGI. He bought a 747 and crashed it into a building. No doubt the CGI version would have been "better" and "more awesome." I think for Nolan, and for his audience, it mattered that we were seeing something that physically happened. For his upcoming film Oppenheimer, Nolan is again not using CGI for atomic bomb blasts. IDK how he's doing it, but it will be something physical photographed.
For the photography that I do care about: Photojournalism and Documentary, manufactured images don't even make sense. An image of a Guatemalan refuge family detained at the US-Mexico border by United States Border Patrol Agents doesn't mean anything if it's AI generated. As you say with vinyl records, perhaps all the AI will foster a Renaissance in straight photography. Like you, I don't use PS at all, I only use LR for Contrast, Color Balance, Recover Shadows & Hilights, etc. But to be honest, I do tend to add a lot of contrast and often recover a lot of hilights/shadows - so how "real" my images are may also be debated.
Nope - people want to look at an interesting picture for 5 seconds and then move on to the next one. Create the art FOR YOURSELF and you will always be rewarded. But you can't convince the public that artificial content is somehow inferior. They don't look at it that way.
I agree with everything you say regarding photography. I also understand that it will be another creative tool for commercial uses. The problem is, it's so easy to do that clients will be able to create for themselves rather than rely on the expertise and creativity of photographers.
I think this only changes two things: How fast you can modify a picture and who can modify it. Couse a person with expertise can do the same but it will took a lot of time depending what do you want to do. With this new feature almost everyone can do a modification. The biggest difference, in my opinion, is that brings Photoshop closer to the masses.
I disagree here for a simple reason: Most of togs that really know PS are xorking with macros and actions as their starting point, ease in the process. So the gain in time consumption is not certain.
I am a fairly new amateur photographer. I ordered two of your books (Stunning Digital Photography and Lightroom) and have joined the Facebook group. While I can (sort of) understand the want or need for this type of technology advancement, it seems to undermine everything a photographer stands for. I enjoy the personal satisfaction I feel when I get a beautiful photograph and I also enjoy learning from my mistakes with photographs that don’t turn out so good. It would seem to me that this type of photo enhancement is sort of like cheating or taking the easy way out. That isn’t why I started learning photography.
Tony & Chelsea I have just received your 225 page “Stunning Digital Photography” book and although I’m only on page 8, my knowledge of what real photo creating ideas is all about has just sky rocketed 10 fold. Absolutely incredible knowledge of what we really should be thinking about, but never do, because we’ve never been taught.
Seriously, I'm only on page 8 and I’ve recovered my outlay already of this absolutely priceless book already, which means the remaining 217 beautifully illustrated put together pages are absolutely free and I never use that word loosely.
Tony and Chelsea, thank you millions for the thousands of hours it must of taken you to create this outstanding book, which I know I will gain incredible knowledge from and obviously I will be purchasing more books from yourself as time goes by, thank you both millions
It will never replace the rush you get from taking real photos. I like the challenge of getting near perfect photos with vintage gear. It's not about doing it the easy way for me.
It's art vs professional photography, clients don't care about the rush you get
@@vaidotasdarulis Oh mine do. They get so stoked when we nail a difficult shot in-camera. It’s all high-fives and huge grins. None of them are impressed by this tedious AI bullshit. Depends on the clients and the photographer perhaps.
It's awesome that you love the challenge. For people not as advanced (like me) it's a good option to remove that palm tree in the background of someone's head in an otherwise perfect shot, etc. But it won't make taking pictures any less appealing for me.
Five years from now, we'll be sitting in our rockers on the front porch, bitching about "those damm kids and their AI Images. Back in the day, I shot straight outta the camera digitally the way Tony Northrop intended." Now you know how film photographers felt at the start of the digital era.
ill be in my wheelchair still taking raw photos and the kids will still call me a dinosaur
I believe it's an awesome tool for people who work with graphics. Instead of wasting time downloading PNGs, it's great to just be able to type what you need. I also don't think it's the end for landscape photographers. They could always choose to mention whether they've used generative fill or not. Besides, a picture isn't always about composition only, but also about the narrative. I love a good story behind every picture.
I'm a graphic designer who has been using PS since V.3 (that's version 3 not CS3) and the new generative fill is amazing. I dabble in photography a bit (mostly products). I can do in seconds what I would often spend many hours doing - and it does it better! Extending a background is seamless to the point of 'no-one could tell'. I also took a fairly complex Stock Photo of a woman pruning a fruit tree and asked it to replace her collared striped pattern shirt with lime-green t-shirt and it basically did it in seconds; I then added a few additional fill layers to fix up smaller sections that didn't quite look right and I had an image, that with only a few small additional edits, would be 100% passable for a full page print advert.
The fact that it adds the generative fills as masked layers is a huge bonus for editing workflow. Amazing stuff, while at the same time, the implications of these AI tools to subvert people's perception of reality are terrifying...
nope - never be able to recreate the moments we capture. i agree AI looks good - and works if there’s something needing a touch up etc… but people need and will continue to want their photo taken. portraits, weddings, music, dance, actual events. AI is here to stay but photography is going NOWHERE.
Hear hear
Been using the AI Remove tool just to remove imperfections on some images such as a hole in a leaf or something. I am very impressed. I also used the Denoise AI which takes awhile to complete but is very very good. These sorts of tools are game changers for me personally. This new AI thing though? I have played around with it for an hour and while its amazing it rememinds me of mid 00's photoshop where people were fooled by obvious photoshop edits to the point they would question your images "Was it photoshop'd".
I'm very concerned about A.I. destroying professions and especially "commoditizing" creative professions of all kinds like never before. I comfort myself that someone always has to capture raw video or photos but I see stock photography being the first casualty of this new technology. In broader society I'm very concerned of the flood of fraud and illegal hacking of all sorts of information that's sure to come and will be very hard to control. This is not a "disruptive" technology - it's a nuclear bomb to our information society.
The baseball cap is so high, I don't know why I find it so funny 💀
I've been waiting to hear from you about this. Hope there's more from you on this topic.
My first thought was how many jobs, revenue or income streams will be lost.
I think it will speed up the work flow.
At this point I'm still trying to wrap my brain around this.
I think we all knew this was inevitable and is here to stay.
That is an awesome feature, but it does take away from photographer's doing the work and getting the experience.
I just used it an hour ago for a client image shot in a carpark. I replaced the carpark with a beach at sunset, then made the image 50% wider and taller, and it was perfect. Amazing!
I thing little adding is what many people are okay with. But if you generate something you have never seen before with your very own eyes, you will get bored very fast, because a real photographer wants to tell a story behing a picture. And what if the photographer does not know the story? Maby even people will get bored of all this artificial things in the future. Nice, that they are there, but i want my marriage beeing real: I WANT THAT FEELING OF PHOTOGRAPHY!
Great review Tony I hate fake stuff................
I am wholeheartedly dedicated to embracing this technology. Since the mid-70s, I have been deeply engrossed in the realm behind the camera, and my ardor for it remains unwavering. I perceive the skills, equipment, and technology as mere instruments. Though some may misuse them, this applies to every facet of life. I will persist in venturing to different locations and capturing shots, even if I could reproduce the same image from the comfort of my home.
1:25 They should call this the Peter Lik effect.
Thank you.
This shows it in 5 Minutes.
So much Hype on the news outlets, but you did a great job of it in 5 minutes.
Honestly the decision is up to the photographer, is it a little more "right now" then photography was a decade ago.... definitely, but the having the ability doesn't mean one has to use it for everything or even at all.
The first thing I thought of when I seen this beta feature was the countless photos I could have salvaged with the help of the AI features, not just generating new items etc, but even just the ability to fix minor inconsistencies, plus there is the improvement on object removal which is a true benefit.
First, this is scary in that it is so good we can no longer be sure that any image we look at is "real."
Second, as an amateur who wants to edit photos to make them more true to what I actually experienced, I can see only limited but really valuable uses for this. For example, my standards of "real" include eliminating people from scenes because, in my mind, I could have waited for them to move and their removal doesn't change what is actually visible in the scene. However, I can understand why others, including news photographers, would not countenance such an edit. Another example is removing distracting elements that, I justify in my mind, I could have physically removed (had I had the right and ability) such as traffic signs, wires, and trash. Again, that may cross the line for others. I cannot see me using this to add anything that wasn't there (such as a beautiful sailboat to a sunset scene) or to expand a photo with elements that the AI creates.
Already for a long long time we can’t be sure if an image we look at is real.
@@leerass Agree but these tools extend the ability to more people to alter more photos in more ways.
The innovation will never stop. How web use individually does not really matter. But confusion will surely increase too. Welcome to the age of a.i. !
I have been one Adobe's Community Experts for fourteen years now, and I can tell you no other new Photoshop feature has generated as much interest as Generative Fill, on the Adobe forums. Not even close. I worked a commercial photographer for many years, but rarely use my cameras nowadays. Instead I think of myself as an illustrator and compositor, so when Adobe's Firefly became available I was depressed and sad that the skills I have developed using over a lifetime would become redundant and anyone could do what I can do the first time they used a computer to generate images. Since then, people like Jesus Ramirez and Colin Smith (Photoshop Training Channel, and Photoshop Cafe) have demonstrated clever ways to use Generative fill and I now feel that I still have an advantage. What has really surprised me is how much use I am getting out of Gen Fill and Firefly. I am using them as an alternative to stock images because I can closer to my vision using Ai, and it is not costing me anything. In fact I used Gen Fill and Firefly five times in a recent project. Colin has even shown us how to automate Gen fill to build up a large area in 1024 X 1024 pixel squares to overcome the pixelation issue Gen Fill has. One thing for certain sure is that there's no stopping it, so we have to work at making best use of it.
It is both exciting and scary, imagine the impact of an image of foreign battleships approaching statue of liberty, or military planes over an Eiffel tower etc. One thing worth mentioning is plenty of people are doing it anyway they just had to learn the skill like you mentioned, now it's just available to anyone (with Adobe subscription). The thing that always annoy me is that people will not admit it's a CGI, they'll try to convince others that "it actually happened".
The scary thing - in 2 months it will be vastly perfected!!
I'm certainly not interested in adding AI generated content assembled from Adobe stock photographs. But, when I went back and used generative AI to remove distracting elements that had taken me 20 minutes or more to remove using Photoshop's other tools, AI did the job in a few seconds: without providing AI with any instructions, I was able to replace the legs of a couple of audience members in the corner of an angled shot of musicians at a workshop with exactly aligned wood panel flooring that blended in perfectly with the rest of the flooring in the shot. AI processing will make it much easier and quicker to process photos, but what I'm trying to achieve in the end will be the same.
This will lead to a mess, eventually.
There will be visual objects added to images where the source license cause legal problems, or at least moral ones.
In some future when a high proportion of all images are using generative fill, the sailboats and geese we will use to fake a another seascape will be fake already.
If noone bothers to make images of real things, what should be used to generate those fills the empty areas needs?
for now and in the future, this just makes those raw and pure shots more valuable.
It'll be interesting to see how they manage the "objects" that can be selected for insertion, presuming that they will have a limited "free stock" but then a paid option where known, identifiable and highly desirable objects can be monetised as a user pays option.
Irrespective of our views and opinions this is the future.
Yea I can see it now. $19.99 for a Gucci pack 😂
Those are AI generated "objects". To train a embeding for AI model just for a bag is doable, but not the same as adding image to stock photos.
Thank you for sharing this video Tony. I think it will be up to the individual photographer. In my opinion it is an ethics question. I enjoy getting out there and taking the pictures
I just got over my amazement at the PS AI. I tried to add an old biplane and a single-engine airplane, and it couldn’t do that. It couldn’t add a sailing ship, a tall ship, or a modern container cargo ship. I extended canvas and it outlined the extension and the smaller original portion. It did a great job , however, as a very fancy healing tool, so woohoo to that. It removed sticks from in front of a bird but left blur wounds and a disconnected claw that wouldn’t hurt a Facebook, picture, but forget printing it large.
This has been an issue every since I saw the options that could remove a fence for example from in front of a subject. It's not subtracting a fence, it's adding to the subject/person. Cameras have not been true to life for a long time already, this is just a small step forward, not a revolution. That doesn't mean it's not scary, though.
Great video! but is it me or the video got cut off at the end?
Just as we can usually only tell that our food is organic by the lable and our trust in the vendor; Just as we can only tell that the antiques or art that we buy are authentic by the provenance paperwork and our trust in the seller; We can now only tell that photos are authentic by the documentation provided and our trust in the source.
I feel this may actually make "honest" photography even more valuable. I have never trusted the authenticity of commercial or stock photography anyway. So that isn't going to change.
I’ve tried the beta and found it to be impossible to get exactly what I wanted added to the image. Maybe Adobe should add a link to their stock images and give me a selection of items to choose from. Also it distorts most images. I asked it to put a martini in my subjects hand, and it put the drink in a hurricane glass with whipped cream on top.
They crate the images themselves
@@Regalieth9143 the images are created using Adobe stock images as a base. I’ve had other peoples faces pop up when retouching portraits.
It generates images from stuff thats already out there on the net. Professional photographers make the best money from things that aren't out there and never will be. Wedding photos, portraits, new fashion creations, new products for sale. It will kill stock photography but that never made serious money for photographers. It won't affect hobby photographers because they get paid in satisfaction, not dollars. It will kill competitions, but that's probably a good thing because they reward one type of creativity at the expense of all others.
It' funny to see the AI generate new objects. Am I the only one that recognises a tank in this boat 1:33 ? The second yacht is also a wierd one, you would associate the flybridge (topdeck) with a motor yacht since this tall structure would interfere with the sail. It might exist but it would be very uncommon to combine a mast with a flybridge. However, if you're not into boats, I don't think you would notice (I'm not into birds, maybe it is uncommon for these birds to form a flock, etc.).
sometimes the generative fill gets it perfect the first time (like if there's a blurry forest in the background with utility poles - removes utility pole seamlessly). Other times it struggles so badly even when it seems so simple - I extended someone's foot since the pic cut it off and it took me 30 minutes to get AI to provide quality looking shoes that doesn't warp the subjects' feet
Thanks for video. Something to consider when upgrading your photoshop if needed.
Good video, thanks. How do you go from LrC to PS beta?
As a hobbyist, this is discouraging. I no longer feel motivated to wake uo early in the morning to get that shot or travel far away to photograph a temple. Anyone can do it on their bed using a laptop and i find myself not really interested in scrolling through Instagram to be amazed by beautiful pictures anymore. My mind has dismissed everything as being fake. Btw, it's this new technology that is making me sell my expensive equipment such as 1.2 lenses..fake bokeh apps...high megapixel camera.. because of upscaling software.
I see this being a rocketship tool for advertising agencies creating content for a campaign which usually needs comping things in or out. Simply means another race to the bottom in terms of costing. Luckily, I think, based on a couple of examples, there is so much marketing potential to be had on BTS content.
what comes to my mind is the analogy of the iron.
It can be used for a plow and a sword. Since then, every technical invention for good has been a less good one
My photography will not change. I do make pictures for me and capture what is there, wait for the right moment, have fun, experience nature. My wife and me did a several day desert trip, it is the experience that count, the heat, the sandstorm, even the night with the thunderstorm, the Milky Way, the quietness.
No one can create that on screen.
I see one good thing, all the traveling to the “special selfie spots” may end if anyone can post it by a click it is nothing special anymore. 😀
Wondering if this will allow staging of real estate photos? Interesting thought.
Very cool.... sold most of my equipment... new avocation... restoring vintage sport cars....
This is like the very beginning of computational photography. Nobody in the photography business understood the magnitude of it, until we had it in front of our clients and: oh boy! They couldn’t tell the difference between an iPhone shot and a Nikon D850 Lightroom finely post processed picture.
My guess? This is yet another step forward simplifying the storytelling process of photography.
Digital artists will blend with photographers, becoming one united job field.
iPhone cannot replace sports photography, that’s just one example and there will always be a need for accurate reporting and authenticity - you can’t create someone’s weddings photos using computational photography
This scares me too... But at the same time, I'm sure landscape *painters* had a lot of opinions on Ansel Adams when he started. So did film photographers when digital came out.
I choose to see it with poise and believe that true art will eventually prevail. Will this kill photography as a job? Probably. But the art? Not sure... There are still painters around after all right?...
I cut off a hot spring in one of my favorite pictures from Yellowstone a few years ago. PS fixed that in minutes. Great job!
As most have said in one way or another, for the photographer it’s about the experience or journey with the reward being a wonderful captured moment - that actually existed. For someone just looking at someone’s work they likely won’t care that much. I do think there needs to be some way of verifying that an image someone is looking at is AI or consists of AI generated elements which may not reflect the actual scene when captured. As Tony stated, people had to plan and wait for everything to come together to capture an image. Now, far too often, even a captured image is over-edited in post to where it hardly resembles the original ho-hum scene. I’m not a big fan of that either as to me it’s a bit of a cheat IMO. I would hope that people care about whether someone truly captured a moment in time that really existed, especially if only briefly, as opposed to generating one. One is the art of the photographer capturing a moment forever and the other is painting on a digital canvas whatever someone’s imagination desires. To me, there’s nothing special about the latter as it can be created and changed at will especially with the ease at which it’s able to be done today. So, do people want to look at a photographer’s work or a painter’s work? I think at the very least they should know what it is they are looking at and/or admiring.
Very cool tool. I’m an architectural photographer just got a ton of edit requests from my client. Some edits are very difficult some are easy. Generative fill can do most but what it does is create a weird blur around the AI generated image such as a tree of the background is too blurry.
There will be times that this is great, but there will be other times where a physical clone or healing brush will
Produce higher quality pixel results, until maybe version 30 of Beta 😂
I was initially alarmed. When a photo looked too good, we used to say "Photoshopped". But when they all look "too good" (and they will), will anyone care? In circles where it matters, photographers should still be required to produce the "back of camera" RAW still (or negative) for authentication.
It will help and hurt. At first will help but as more people get access to this tool, photographers will be phased out to an extent. Most people can't tell the difference between an iphone 5 picture and my Nikon Z9 pics, so that says many things.
Yes I did a whole video on this. It is crazy. Apparently Adobe scrape their own stock image library for these so technically they are not stealing others photos
Nice video. I am not surprised by the new technology and fully expect even more changes. For years, I have been telling my friends and students that you should never, ever trust any photograph you see. It was true when Ansel was dodging and burning and it's true today.
I agree with your comment although I think the degree to which it applies is exponentially greater with AI than it was with the tools Ansel had. At least with Ansel you know the components of the scene are real even if it’s was enhanced.
I can see why for a photographer this feature is 'scary' but for for a photo editor in a printing company, this AI is godsend. Everyday I got photos sent in wrong print ratio, removing or adding objects and so on. I've tried the new Generative Fill and I'm blown away by how much faster I can finish my work. Up to 50% I would say. That's HUUUUGE!
Can't wait for the final release
This is a great tutorial on using Adobe Photoshop's AI-generated fill feature; very informative!
I might be just learning something that others been knowing but I just learned I could hook my a7iii to my phone and send photos directly to lightroom from my camera. I thought that was an awesome thing
lightrooms denoise is stellar for rescuing those old high iso images.
Do you have copyright for the commercial use of the resulting photo as author?
Yes (assuming that Adobe is OK with that). Because the "generative fills" are natively AI generated items, i.e. unique and never seen before, i.e. they are not cut-outs from other existing photos.
Wow this is really incredible. Photoshop's magic tools are getting more and more extensive. I remain amazed at what AI can do in words and images.
My desire is portrait photography, the Dylan Patrick/Rafal Wegiel style. After toying with this for just a few minutes I am in love with replacing the background in portraits. I can see taking photos in studio and then seamlessly remaking the background a busy urban setting with motion blur
That defeats the purpose of calling yourself a photographer. if you have to EDIT the image, you're now a graphic designer. Why even take photos of people? snag them from online, stick a background on it, DONE this is 'your photo'.
Its like when people take Macro pics of dead bugs and post it with a signature... HA! SO CREATIVE AND JAW BROPPING.
I feel camera manufacturers can provide some way of authentication on an image that's not changeable by Photoshop or other apps with generative AI. This might make sure that photographers who don't use generative AI can easily claim it.
I thought the same, maybe put encrypted information in the metadata. I think the camera manufacturers will have to do something, because their sales will be affected.
I find this new feature allot of fun, its not perfect "yet", but still fun to work with.
HI CHELSEA & TONY !!!
This Is The End of Photography As We Know It.
We Don't Need Any More Expensive Photography Gear.....
I Just Took a Photo With My 16 Years Old 8 Megapixel Sony Camera.......And Guys !!!!! I Was Blown Away With I Was Able to Do....
Tomorrow I Am Going to Sell to MPB Cameras Everything I Have → $ 7900 Worth of Sony and Nikon Cameras. [ and Lenses ]
Absolutely INSANE.
Have Fun !
Fernando
I've installed PS Beta and Generative Fill does not come up as an option after using the lasso tool ?
I see most of people commenting here missing the point, if people get flooded with super images they just worth less, will be no demand anymore, so will get so cheap to produce all this things and will destroy completely photography, first photographers don't get any money anymore, don't make picture then ai haves no new reference images anymore and will be a giant copy paste, same will happen to all other categories design music, music artist will also loose there jobs will be a flood of great music made by ai, we humans can't compete in anything with ai in future, future lol 6-12 months, will destroy everything, if no musicians anymore will be no concerts, no museums all dead, my vision is like this because I know well how people with influence like to make things, we will get world with so many homeless people and some few so rich, and its not far away, ai should be banned from most of the things should be a help for things we should improve like health and other good things, but throwing it in to everything will just make humans obsolete, I saw people talking that new jobs will be created I really would love to hear a single one, that's not like previous tech evolutions, ai is a replacement of human not a evolution of tech, what previous made us human special was the ability to think and adapt to different situations, ai does the same only in a second, for people which think that's great and will bring anything good to humanity you wrong.
In its current state it works surprisingly well for practical use. I did a photoshoot the other day with someone that brought only one outfit. A suit jacket with jeans and sneakers. I was able to change his shoes to dress shoes and pants to a suit pants. Now I have a second look.
but the one with the only suit told a nice story and would be a talking point....now from what you said i wounldnt look twice at said photo.....but the one with the sneaks and jeans i would think about that one for sometime wondering what the story is behind that one....just my 2 cents here
@@tinyhomeliving2024 Yes, their outfit actually fit their personality quite well. They're a radio personality and will be the host of an event. The shoot was on a white background with the purpose of being composited into marketing material, so just being able to create options out of nothing is amazing.
Ill be using this to communicate ideas for theme park designs withiut making them in 3d. Really specific use case that doesnt threaten professional photogrphy/photo editing.
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 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.
Can you integrate a specific product to the image. For example, if you had a second image of a hat. Could it manipulate that hat to be placed on her head.
Great video! What are the legal rights for changing someone else’s photos that you have bought? I’m running into this question all the time now when using this new tool and you are able to instantly change an original photo with little effort and amazing results. For example from portrait to landscape mode.
This is going to be the new craze in social media!
"Real photography" ended with social media
I can see the benefits for some types of photography and agree it’s a game changer. However as a landscape and dark sky photographer who runs workshops am I concerned? Not on the slightest. The reason being yes I could create fake images that look amazing however I would not have been there or it would not be a true representation. Which is the whole point. For me it is the experience of being out with the camera, understanding the conditions and planning to be in the right place at the right time. That is what my clients pay me for as well. They want to experience Mother Nature at her best. AI may be amazing but it will never be able to replace the real thing- well for now anyway!
You'll never be able to get a real image of a memory in your life that was never photographed... and that's where photography has its roots. Capturing memories that actually happened. Whether it be that football game you went to with your dad, or that time you broke your arm at school, your graduation day, your wedding, your birthday, your vacation, your first trip on an airplane, the first days of your childrens' lives, an NBA game, that time the entire family showed up for thanksgiving dinner, that xmas where the house burnt down, the crazy amount of snow you had to shovel that one blizzard, or the puppy you met along your hike. The time you got in an automobile accident, or the time you went panning for gold with your uncle and found a nugget worth 150$!. That is after all, what photography is all about... capturing memories. AI, will not be able to show you any of the above, unless the pictures already exist. What AI can do, is manipulate those pictures better than any tool we've ever had available to us. We still need people to take the pictures and make them available for AI to plunder and manipulate in creating something new. It's a new age in image manipulation and creation, but camera's aren't going anywhere anytime soon.
Nothing changed in the notion of a "Photo - Shop" except speed and ease. Photographs are light recordings, not creative composites of crops of light recordings. We need this delineation to help in public discernment of what we're looking at. Otherwise the slippery slope to abuse of representation for fun and profit is too steep and will, as it is massively this very second that I write this sentence, be exponentially abused to deceive with these new AI based technologies.
It's crazy! But I have mixed feelings about it. I'm not happy in a Photographer perspective... because if I were a photographer, a photo is just what I freeze in that moment I took the photo. If I added things that weren't there when I took the picture, then it'd be something that makes the picture unreal. I wouldn't like it. But in a creative perspective, outside the photographic realm, it has a great potential for inspiration. When I do use Photoshop to create stuff for myself or friends, I use Google to find things I need and then I take my time to mix them into my idea. But with this feature, everything is so straighforward and easy.
Man, if this came out on April 1st you would have had me 100% fooled. Very interesting
So on any of our web sites, we'll now have to put a disclaimer: "No Photoshop AI Used." Kind of like the foods in our supermarkets, with "No Added Sugar," or "All Natural," or "No GMO" or whatnot.
I have used the AI works great but there is an issue with the finished image that cannot be uploaded it on FB. Any thoughts?
As you say the end of real Photographers. I only ever use the free Photo app on Windows 10 because I ‘can’ use my camera 😊
I think it can be helpful, for example when you have bird where it's wings are slightly out of frame. However, there were times I noticed immediately where it didn't look right, when you were generating how the model looked there were some weird things happening, especially with the glasses her nostrils suddenly flared open more. The lips looked especially fake once they were applied. So I think if you go too far it will start looking fake. I can see using it to fix small parts of an image.
I see this as a tool for some photographers who need to modify their pictures. For me I use light room and photo shop to make some minor adjustments to my pictures.
This is great! Photography without having to go outside! So cool - never miss an episode of RHONJ while eating Cheeto’s and calling yourself a Professional Landscape Photographer. You could win Landscape Photography contests without ever getting dirt on your Nike’s.
I've been using the new generative fill feature and it does what I've always wanted Photoshop to do, without hours and hours of obscure editing. It's a bit mind boggling, but very useful. However I am sad that they're removing the option to render 3D lighting effects. That was the main reason I used Photoshop over Lightroom before, but now this new feature is a game changer.
The joy of capturing a scene in its “natural state “ - real clouds, lighting, mood, etc. - outweighs the short term emotional “fix” of creating a super-enhanced AI image a hundred fold.
Is that true for the masses? Will that be true for somebody born in 2025?
I understand what you mean. I would love the ability to easily merge two images taken close together so that the image is still “real” But just the perfect timing of all elements (if that makes sense
Every photo we see in the future will beg the question, was this created by AI or a photographer? I personally wouldn’t hang one of my photos on the wall if I knew key parts of the image were AI generated. I would feel like a fraud.
But if your photography is to make money, this coyld change things for you.
It seems like the perspective and lighting didn’t match. For example, things in the distance should go blue and hazy. But I’m sure it will improve and be undetectable soon.
It's called, collage, if you took all the pictures, yourself, then aslong as you say it's how you generated it, then what's the problem ? If you don't admit how it was generated then it, demeans, the art of photography, probably to a point where it has very little real value.
You're quite right to be very suspicious of this, Tony. The old adage, "Seeing is believing." will now be a dispensable notion. Ultimately, the image will be cheapened to the point of irrelevance. Everything becomes a mere trope. Adobe: Just because one can do such a thing doesn't necessarily mean that it should be done.
I think we are already in a similar situation for most people. There is no photo I can make, that hasn't been done better by someone else already. That's true for almost anyone on any topic. However, my goal isn't to make the best photo anyone ever did. My goal is to make the best photo I can make, given my personal restrictions. For example I do mostly travel photography, but I don't want to carry a heavy bag. I also don't have the time to wait for perfect conditions and I'm simply not a professional. So naturally that restricts the type and quality of the photos I can possibly make. What I want is a personal record of my journey to look back on and I'm happy when I make a good photo for that. That's it.
Now with the help of AI I can improve my photos afterwards. Maybe make a mediocre photo better or a good one great. But that's nothing new. You could do that decades ago with photoshop already, it was just more difficult and took more time and knowledge. Most of the photos we get to see are already heavily modified. It's not considered "cheating" to adjust colors and lighting, even if the end result doesn't resemble the actual conditions at all. Is it cheating to remove power lines or specks of dust to make a photo better in post-processing? Does it really make a difference, if someone personally used filters and skill or if an AI does it? I'd argue, that even generating content and adding stuff doesn't change that. If it's the end result that counts, then the way you got there doesn't really matter. For me as a viewer, it makes no difference (usually), if a photo was made with considerable effort, or if an AI generated it. What is important, however, is the story behind the photo, it's purpose. That purpose is different wether we are talking about wedding photos, landscape photography, ads or press photos. In some cases AI can add to or even replace real photographers, in others it can't.
What AI also doesn't have is taste and style. It can generate photos for a certain taste in a specific style, but it's still the users choice what that should be and to select the end result. Even a general AI with it's own taste and style wouldn't be better than humans at photography, because in the end it's a matter of personal taste what speaks to someone.
I see this doing very well for RUclips thumbnails
As a wedding photographer I kind of imagine that it can help me add sky’s without having a problem or add trees in empty fields but if you are landscape photographer or wildlife photographer take pictures of trees and some birds and your local Facebook group will be ecstatic 🤣🤣🫣
I would like to see Adobe have the information written into the file data that says "AI generated" when the filter is used. And make it non erasable from the file data.
What's to stop someone from taking a screenshot of the results?
Focus hunting @ 1:59 LOL Tony
what about resolution of this generative fill?
Well, it's really great. It is excellent for those without any photo editing knowledge. For professional photographers, I don't think they'll need this unless they find some new option in this program that actually may be helpful. As for me, I don't think it's cool to modify a photo like this. Editing to make it perfect is completely one thing. But seeing something that is completely different. This is kind of the easiest level for everyone. Of course, a lot of people may like it. I prefer the manual way.
So photography is finally becoming painting... 🖼 📸
Very interesting, thank you. I'm particularly interested in the hardware implications of AI. Why take full frame when almost all aspects of photo quality can be improved by using a relatively cheap computer program? Thanks, Tony.