Thanks for this. I'm soon to embark on some still-life, fantasy, sci-fi-driven, stuff that I think (hope) PS and Firefly will help immensely with while maintaining the overall creative aspects of the pics as being "mine!" Looking forward to more vids about PS/Firefly/AI and it's uses for photographers. As for the future of photography (as the new AI tools become part of the equation) I think it will be wildly abused resulting in lots and lots of crap masquerading as art, as well as some really awesome work. Bottom line will remain, however, in the value of what someone produces in the camera.
The background replacement thing looks very promising. It’s another tool for digital image composites. Take a person or object you capture, combine it with other imagery, and the cool thing is the AI mostly respects your original lighting intent.
Basically there is nothing new under the sun ! Since I started editing photos (models, landscape architecture etc.) over 25 years ago (with Photoshop a. o.) we also did photo compositions. Deleting and adding stuff, making those post apocalyptic scenes, putting people in places they have never been, and what ever you can imagine. Now this is basically the same only the tools get smarter so the less talented people can also play. Call it AI and you got a new hype
Everyone is asking about the future of photography. Or if photography as we know it is dead. It seems that AI has helped automate many of the capabilities already within the reach of a photoshop expert. So the future of photoshop ( not photography) is now within the reach of us beginners who will be able to edit photos just like the expert photoshop practitioners.
Thanks for digging into this Ed. I tried to do something similar. I had a few nudes and semi nudes that I wanted to see with some clothing and other accessories. I bumped into the terms of use wall on all of them. May try some dupe layers and masks before sending to the Adobe servers next time.
It seems PS is happy to “clothe” people. I did the nude in two sections, top area then bottom area. It has a problem at this time working on imagery where the result is nudity. I also just tried repeating some requests and that sometimes worked.
@@edverosky Couldn't get it to do that. Just sent a a topless image with 2 different requests. 1 Add a shirt, 1 add a background. Rejected both times. Same shot, I put a black star in the appropriate places and it completed both requests.
Last night I attempted to fill in a space on a closeup shot of a hand holding a bic lighter. To see if it would match up one phot with the background of another. Apparently THAT was too risqué.
I made this comment elsewhere, crude as it may be. I think that Generative Fill is going to be the turd polisher of choice for photographers everywhere. I've played around with it for a few days, but I've refused to do anything with it using pictures I actually value. Adobe can claim that they're not using the original images for their own purposes, but I have no reason to trust them. I had a shoot some years back where the model was later embarrassed by a framed photo on her wall that ended up in about half our images. I did what I could at the time, but I was never really happy with the edits. I could not get Generative Fill to remove the picture from the background at all, but I was able to get it to make a different, less distracting image in the frame. Considering the thing can get rid of people so easily, I was baffled by how it struggled to remove a framed photo.
In my testing the censoring is happening very often in cases where it shouldn’t. Like maybe I’m just expanding the side of an image with some sky and grass and I get an orange warning message. This is my main issue with it so far. This is a tool for adults anyway, maybe cut it with the censorship.
I would imagine they’ll eventually get this problem solved. They’re worried about liability issues. Need to figure a solution. But I’ve found workarounds.
This is not the future of photography, is the future of graphic design. This is not a photographer's work, it is a graphic designer's work. These images are not photographs, they are creative graphic designs or composite images based on photographs. Things are not all the same. Please contribute so that the basic concepts, the fundamentals, remain intact, and create new names for new things.
As it stands, recording reflections of light from a scene, with an electronic device, onto digital media is still considered photography. So are results, after importing the recorded files to a computer for pixel manipulation. Retouching, color and contrast adjustments, or any “fixing” that we photographers have always done (either by hand-painting negatives or prints, or through modern software), are all some steps away from the reality that existed in the original scene. “Photography” is being changed not because the photograph is being redefined but because the process is. The conceptual idea of a pure photograph is one thing, but how we use that digital asset is redefining what it means to be a photographer, especially a working one.
I've always used image manipulation resources, both analog and digital. But I use those resources within parameters that, as a person and as a professional, I determine, ethically and technically, that the image does not distort the reality it recorded - including : the world was never in black and white and yet we all accepted and still accept that we can represent it in black and white, starting with the press, the best regulator regarding ethics on photography. This has nothing to do with composite images. Calling composite images photographs is a brutal mistake. The consequences are plain to see: almost nobody believes in a photograph anymore; almost no one believes that a photographer simply takes pictures without manipulating images. Photography is about to lose its greatest value, human, historical and technical: the ability to visually and acceptably represent reality - to create and leave a visual testimony from reality. And when "evolution" presupposes losses, losing something previously conquered, I don't think it's evolution. It's regression. And deep down, it would just be a matter of critical thinking, wisdom, and creating new names for new things, keeping the fundamentals with the richness they carry. I believe in this project: the creation of a non-fictional label for photographs and photographers: tcq.photos/index.html (the website is down for a couple of days ?) * I apologize for the long unburden!
![I Replaced ALL my ADOBE APPS with these [free or cheaper] Alternatives!](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/5EfqHg49kMk/mqdefault.jpg)
👉 Get your free bonus downloads here! edverosky.com/subscriber-bonus/
Informative, please keep making these kinds of videos as the technology progresses.
Thanks for this. I'm soon to embark on some still-life, fantasy, sci-fi-driven, stuff that I think (hope) PS and Firefly will help immensely with while maintaining the overall creative aspects of the pics as being "mine!" Looking forward to more vids about PS/Firefly/AI and it's uses for photographers. As for the future of photography (as the new AI tools become part of the equation) I think it will be wildly abused resulting in lots and lots of crap masquerading as art, as well as some really awesome work. Bottom line will remain, however, in the value of what someone produces in the camera.
The background replacement thing looks very promising. It’s another tool for digital image composites. Take a person or object you capture, combine it with other imagery, and the cool thing is the AI mostly respects your original lighting intent.
Basically there is nothing new under the sun !
Since I started editing photos (models, landscape architecture etc.) over 25 years ago (with Photoshop a. o.) we also did photo compositions.
Deleting and adding stuff, making those post apocalyptic scenes, putting people in places they have never been, and what ever you can imagine.
Now this is basically the same only the tools get smarter so the less talented people can also play.
Call it AI and you got a new hype
It’s basically the same thing only faster. Just like digital made everything easier than film for beginners.
i tried but i didnt get the generative ai option
Are you using the Photoshop beta version?
What do you think about the future of photography as the new AI tools become part of the equation?
It over Probably 😢
My hourly editing rate is about to get a huge increase...😂
Everyone is asking about the future of photography. Or if photography as we know it is dead. It seems that AI has helped automate many of the capabilities already within the reach of a photoshop expert. So the future of photoshop ( not photography) is now within the reach of us beginners who will be able to edit photos just like the expert photoshop practitioners.
I think for a professional photographer, being able to deliver better results faster, is going to be a win.
but how do you open that menu
Are you using the Photoshop beta version?
Thanks for digging into this Ed. I tried to do something similar. I had a few nudes and semi nudes that I wanted to see with some clothing and other accessories. I bumped into the terms of use wall on all of them. May try some dupe layers and masks before sending to the Adobe servers next time.
It seems PS is happy to “clothe” people. I did the nude in two sections, top area then bottom area. It has a problem at this time working on imagery where the result is nudity. I also just tried repeating some requests and that sometimes worked.
@@edverosky Couldn't get it to do that. Just sent a a topless image with 2 different requests. 1 Add a shirt, 1 add a background. Rejected both times. Same shot, I put a black star in the appropriate places and it completed both requests.
Last night I attempted to fill in a space on a closeup shot of a hand holding a bic lighter. To see if it would match up one phot with the background of another. Apparently THAT was too risqué.
@@edverosky It's not called Artificial Intelligence for no reason... Lol
I made this comment elsewhere, crude as it may be. I think that Generative Fill is going to be the turd polisher of choice for photographers everywhere. I've played around with it for a few days, but I've refused to do anything with it using pictures I actually value. Adobe can claim that they're not using the original images for their own purposes, but I have no reason to trust them.
I had a shoot some years back where the model was later embarrassed by a framed photo on her wall that ended up in about half our images. I did what I could at the time, but I was never really happy with the edits. I could not get Generative Fill to remove the picture from the background at all, but I was able to get it to make a different, less distracting image in the frame. Considering the thing can get rid of people so easily, I was baffled by how it struggled to remove a framed photo.
In my testing the censoring is happening very often in cases where it shouldn’t. Like maybe I’m just expanding the side of an image with some sky and grass and I get an orange warning message. This is my main issue with it so far. This is a tool for adults anyway, maybe cut it with the censorship.
I would imagine they’ll eventually get this problem solved. They’re worried about liability issues. Need to figure a solution. But I’ve found workarounds.
This is not the future of photography, is the future of graphic design. This is not a photographer's work, it is a graphic designer's work. These images are not photographs, they are creative graphic designs or composite images based on photographs. Things are not all the same. Please contribute so that the basic concepts, the fundamentals, remain intact, and create new names for new things.
As it stands, recording reflections of light from a scene, with an electronic device, onto digital media is still considered photography. So are results, after importing the recorded files to a computer for pixel manipulation. Retouching, color and contrast adjustments, or any “fixing” that we photographers have always done (either by hand-painting negatives or prints, or through modern software), are all some steps away from the reality that existed in the original scene. “Photography” is being changed not because the photograph is being redefined but because the process is. The conceptual idea of a pure photograph is one thing, but how we use that digital asset is redefining what it means to be a photographer, especially a working one.
I've always used image manipulation resources, both analog and digital. But I use those resources within parameters that, as a person and as a professional, I determine, ethically and technically, that the image does not distort the reality it recorded - including : the world was never in black and white and yet we all accepted and still accept that we can represent it in black and white, starting with the press, the best regulator regarding ethics on photography.
This has nothing to do with composite images. Calling composite images photographs is a brutal mistake. The consequences are plain to see: almost nobody believes in a photograph anymore; almost no one believes that a photographer simply takes pictures without manipulating images. Photography is about to lose its greatest value, human, historical and technical: the ability to visually and acceptably represent reality - to create and leave a visual testimony from reality. And when "evolution" presupposes losses, losing something previously conquered, I don't think it's evolution. It's regression. And deep down, it would just be a matter of critical thinking, wisdom, and creating new names for new things, keeping the fundamentals with the richness they carry.
I believe in this project: the creation of a non-fictional label for photographs and photographers: tcq.photos/index.html (the website is down for a couple of days ?)
* I apologize for the long unburden!
I agree that we’re in danger of losing the ability to know what’s real and what’s fake in media.