alecdann
New member
If you run out of credits, it just means that your image will have lower priority in the server queue. And you can buy more if you want them. Non-commercial users would have to be doing a lot of heavy editing to hit 100.
Photoshop v 25 with Generative AI
- Thread starter Ivan Rothman
- Start date
If you would like to post, you'll need to register. Note that if you have a BCG store account, you'll need a new, separate account here (we keep the two sites separate for security purposes).
it is a schlep to do 1024 blocks of GF at a time - but that is the only way to overcome the low res issue at this point. Plenty videos out there - here's one
I copied straight from Fb - (c) included - so I dont know eitherNo (c), AI cannot be copyrighted...
I do know GF may now be used commercially...
I read somewhere that the Meta data will include the fact that the image contained AI generated content. But if you can use it commercially - surely you can Copyright it?
Nope. Cannot be copyrighted. Many brands are staying away from the technology because of this. My contracts now require me to say that I did not use AI to generate the images I submit.it is a schlep to do 1024 blocks of GF at a time - but that is the only way to overcome the low res issue at this point. Plenty videos out there - here's one
I copied straight from Fb - (c) included - so I dont know either
I do know GF may now be used commercially...
I read somewhere that the Meta data will include the fact that the image contained AI generated content. But if you can use it commercially - surely you can Copyright it?
Good to knowit is a schlep to do 1024 blocks of GF at a time - but that is the only way to overcome the low res issue at this point. Plenty videos out there - here's one
I copied straight from Fb - (c) included - so I dont know either
I do know GF may now be used commercially...
I read somewhere that the Meta data will include the fact that the image contained AI generated content. But if you can use it commercially - surely you can Copyright it?
alecdann
New member
Read the Adobe Firefly guidellnes. Clarifies copyright and commercial use issues. I was happy to see that Adobe is limiting their AI training to Adobe Stock (where they license the photos) and photos that are out of copyright (50+ years old in most cases). Adobe is working toward a badge of some kind that will flag original content. They've created a consortium (like the one that created rGBG) to work out a standard. They are doing the right things. I was also happy to see that Photography Plan subscribers will not be hit with the increases they are pushing to pay for Firefly (small increases in my view).
The fact remains, AI-generated media is not eligible for copyright protection.
Adobe is talking a good game about protecting copyrighted media, but the genie is out of the box. If you upload a photo, it will be found and used to feed AI engines and a sliver of it might end up in an AI-generated image.
alecdann
New member
Not true. Read their guidelines, linked in an earlier post from me. I think concern about images being hijecked for AI training is real, but not in Adobe apps. If you or others have evidence to the contrary, please post the evidence (links, docs etc) here.
Adobe, even with their size, only posts a tiny fraction of the photos on the internet. And once a photo comes out of their Adobe Stock and starts circulating, it's glong to be picked up.
But my original comment had nothing to do with that. It was pointing out that AI-generated media is not protected by copyright and the artist marking it with (c) is meaningless/delusional.
alecdann
New member
Have you read Adobe's guidelines for commercial use?
Yes, and?
Karl
Active member
Colin Smith (Photoshop Cafe) uses an action to make high resolution generative fill faster and easier than the 1st choice in the above f64 Academy linked video. I haven't tried it yet but it does look promising.
SCoombs
Well-known member
I'm really not a fan of this sort of thing - I do think it goes too far, or at least makes it too easy for people to go too far too readily, since the there are certainly uses that I'd fully support. I think, for instance, that extending the edge in a photo reasonable in a lot of cases.
I tried messing with this today and found that at least in my brief experimentation it was pretty awful at creating something out of nowhere or adding things into a scene, but could be fairly good when it came to trying to do things like improve the background of a scene.
One of the things I experimented with was trying o improve a photo I took this evening of a blue jay that landed at a back yard staging I have set up for photographing birds. Here is the original photo, with the sort of edits I'd normally do:
The way the bird landed right on the edge of the table is a bit unfortunate as it takes away from the realism of the scene a bit. In the original the best I could think of to help with that was to darken the right portion of the frame, and I think it worked okayish. (Any other suggestions are welcome!) I got curious to see what the AI would do. Here are various things I managed to get out of it. These are the most convincing I could get, but there are levels of realism to these. They were done on the (mostly) unedited version.
I think the ones with water added are most convincing, but I think the one that added a concrete ledge is the most interesting to me in terms of what the AI was "thinking." All I asked for to get that was water.
I tried messing with this today and found that at least in my brief experimentation it was pretty awful at creating something out of nowhere or adding things into a scene, but could be fairly good when it came to trying to do things like improve the background of a scene.
One of the things I experimented with was trying o improve a photo I took this evening of a blue jay that landed at a back yard staging I have set up for photographing birds. Here is the original photo, with the sort of edits I'd normally do:
The way the bird landed right on the edge of the table is a bit unfortunate as it takes away from the realism of the scene a bit. In the original the best I could think of to help with that was to darken the right portion of the frame, and I think it worked okayish. (Any other suggestions are welcome!) I got curious to see what the AI would do. Here are various things I managed to get out of it. These are the most convincing I could get, but there are levels of realism to these. They were done on the (mostly) unedited version.
I think the ones with water added are most convincing, but I think the one that added a concrete ledge is the most interesting to me in terms of what the AI was "thinking." All I asked for to get that was water.
I am not claiming I know anything about copyright on AI created or AI-assisted photographs -
This might be on interest
imagesuggest.com
This might be on interest
The Copyright Rules Around AI Images: Everything You Need to Know
The Copyright Rules Around AI Images
The million dollar question is who owns the rights to AI-generated images? It’s not so obvious given that algorithms draw inspiration from human art.
imagesuggest.com
So it's a bit like a mini skirt in the 60's - how short the thing is allowed to be - depends on your set of morals
I suppose we all draw the line somewhere Aweful?
I absolutely disagree. While AI is by n long shot not perfect, it can - and does- generate/produce stuff you would not be able to tell from the real thing in 7 months of Sundays and even then - AI 1, you 0
SCoombs
Well-known member
So it's a bit like a mini skirt in the 60's - how short the thing is allowed to be - depends on your set of morals
Aweful?
I absolutely disagree. While AI is by n long shot not perfect, it can - and does- generate/produce stuff you would not be able to tell from the real thing in 7 months of Sundays and even then - AI 1, you 0
I am very pessimistic about our ability to distinguish things generated by AI from reality and so I agree in broad terms, but where the particular version of AI running behind Adobe's generative fill is concerned what I have seen thus far has been awful unless it was just filling in a background, in which case it has been various degrees of impressive.
For example, here are several I quickly had it generate which are all uniformly bad.
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
That last one, by the way, is supposed to be a toad. The ones which actually do look like the things they're supposed to be, at least sortof, all have a plasticky, very artificial look to them, and often you get something that goes to the extreme of looking more like a Toy Story era CGI creation than anything else. Often, like the last one, the thing it makes doesn't even look close to right. For instance, I can't post it because I'm at the limit for this post but I just asked it to put a flock of birds in front of a photo I have of the sky and a early-evening moon and it came up with a collection of eldritch horrors that look something like what a bird might look like in a hellish nightmare.
Now, ask it to extend a background or add some ground to part of your photo and it can be varying degrees of convincing. Like I said, it seems to do a lot better working on a photo at the forest level than at the individual tree level.
I hope I did a tad better than that
See my post #18 and tell me that wasn't done pretty damn well.
Also - if you look at the Burning man photos - even though there are some issues - you have to recognise this isn't a little tool that will just be useful for filling in backgrounds and making obscure animals. Filling in backgrounds might be most useful to photographers though.
Tools are there to be used. If they work, go for it. Same as AF. And subject tracking. Clip-on ties vs long ones you have to knot. Memory card vs buying and developing film. Oh we can go riiiiiight back to why we should not buy our chops but rather hunt our own food. Evolution.
There is also the current pixel limitation which they said in an Instagram they are working on. The additions are pretty bad for animals. Sky and water are varying degrees ok.
Long way to go.
I am wondering when Adobe will add AI tagging to LR.