Photoshop was built to aid in digital creation/editing (and apparently just display of images). The way you work with it was always meant to empower you and expedite things you might have done...
Photoshop was built to aid in digital creation/editing (and apparently just display of images). The way you work with it was always meant to empower you and expedite things you might have done differently elsewhere.
Not having to know how to use masks to extract hair or color-match for compositing is amazing and I’m glad the tools have gotten this great.
There will always be a need for experts to do the hard stuff but for a lot of applications using what an AI gives you is beyond enough.
RIP clickbait photoshop articles and videos, however. You’ve been put on notice.
We’ve crossed that line where doing hard but intuitive things has become easy. It’s only going to become simpler and easier to generate and alter content. Once they build it into the default...
We’ve crossed that line where doing hard but intuitive things has become easy. It’s only going to become simpler and easier to generate and alter content. Once they build it into the default mobile photo app it’s game over.
Everyone has heard of Photoshopping, but few people have had the expertise needed to do it. With artificial intelligence, that’s no longer the case.
We recently transformed a portrait of one of us into something unreal, and it took just a few seconds. Opening the image in a new AI version of Adobe Photoshop, we selected the area around the head and typed “add a clown wig” into a box. Up sprouted a curly rainbow of photorealistic locks, blending perfectly into the surrounding trees.
I do occasional Photoshop work for my job. I'm sure it will improve over time, but so far, my experiences with the AI tools are that it's good for making some changes, but traditional Photoshop...
I do occasional Photoshop work for my job. I'm sure it will improve over time, but so far, my experiences with the AI tools are that it's good for making some changes, but traditional Photoshop skills are still very much necessary at this stage.
In particular, I have found it very hard to make minute changes to images that require a high degree of accuracy. The AI generation tends to rethink that whole section of the photo and put things in that you didn't necessarily want. For example, if you need to change a person's facial expression, the AI tool may give the person a whole new face. If you need it to remove some object obscuring part of an image, it will often misunderstand the image and fill in the space with something that doesn't fit (e.g., it may misinterpret a medical research lab as an office and fill in with details that don't belong). The more specific and obscure the work you're doing, the more likely it is to have these types of failures.
I hope and expect this will improve, but I don't think we'll be 100% there for a while yet, at least not without a lot of coaxing and iteration that may take more time than just doing it yourself in the first place.
The review is intended for a general audience and doesn't go into any detail, but it seems to be of a beta version of Photoshop, probably version 24.6.0, which is apparently released to paying...
The review is intended for a general audience and doesn't go into any detail, but it seems to be of a beta version of Photoshop, probably version 24.6.0, which is apparently released to paying Creative Cloud customers. Here's a more detailed review from dpreview. I can't find a release date for it, but people seem to have started talking about it in late May. So, still pretty new?
Lies are not new and neither is forging evidence. Society has fairly sophisticated but labor-intensive and error-prone ways for agreeing on the truth when it matters. Most of the time it's not...
Lies are not new and neither is forging evidence. Society has fairly sophisticated but labor-intensive and error-prone ways for agreeing on the truth when it matters. Most of the time it's not worth the trouble, but in a trial, there are procedures for deciding what evidence can be used. Someone saying "it must be a fake" isn't enough to convince a court; they'll need to make a better argument than that.
Photoshop isn't new either. These pictures don't look more convincing than good photoshop jobs done without AI?
Photoshop was built to aid in digital creation/editing (and apparently just display of images). The way you work with it was always meant to empower you and expedite things you might have done differently elsewhere.
Not having to know how to use masks to extract hair or color-match for compositing is amazing and I’m glad the tools have gotten this great.
There will always be a need for experts to do the hard stuff but for a lot of applications using what an AI gives you is beyond enough.
RIP clickbait photoshop articles and videos, however. You’ve been put on notice.
We’ve crossed that line where doing hard but intuitive things has become easy. It’s only going to become simpler and easier to generate and alter content. Once they build it into the default mobile photo app it’s game over.
From the article:
I do occasional Photoshop work for my job. I'm sure it will improve over time, but so far, my experiences with the AI tools are that it's good for making some changes, but traditional Photoshop skills are still very much necessary at this stage.
In particular, I have found it very hard to make minute changes to images that require a high degree of accuracy. The AI generation tends to rethink that whole section of the photo and put things in that you didn't necessarily want. For example, if you need to change a person's facial expression, the AI tool may give the person a whole new face. If you need it to remove some object obscuring part of an image, it will often misunderstand the image and fill in the space with something that doesn't fit (e.g., it may misinterpret a medical research lab as an office and fill in with details that don't belong). The more specific and obscure the work you're doing, the more likely it is to have these types of failures.
I hope and expect this will improve, but I don't think we'll be 100% there for a while yet, at least not without a lot of coaxing and iteration that may take more time than just doing it yourself in the first place.
So AI is now so ancient that newspapers notice it as the hip new thing.
The review is intended for a general audience and doesn't go into any detail, but it seems to be of a beta version of Photoshop, probably version 24.6.0, which is apparently released to paying Creative Cloud customers. Here's a more detailed review from dpreview. I can't find a release date for it, but people seem to have started talking about it in late May. So, still pretty new?
Thanks, admittedly I failed to read properly before commenting!
Lies are not new and neither is forging evidence. Society has fairly sophisticated but labor-intensive and error-prone ways for agreeing on the truth when it matters. Most of the time it's not worth the trouble, but in a trial, there are procedures for deciding what evidence can be used. Someone saying "it must be a fake" isn't enough to convince a court; they'll need to make a better argument than that.
Photoshop isn't new either. These pictures don't look more convincing than good photoshop jobs done without AI?