Ai Has Changed My Photography Forever

[@adejones2340]

I found out now that instead of widening the canvas the using rectangle tool to select, Use the drop-down menu and select Generative Expand. Holding down Alt+Shift and dragging the corner out.

[@Featinwe]

8:20 this is nuts... like seriously... nuts. What's the point of taking pictures anymore?... i'm a landscape photographer with 15+ years of experience and this is just nuts... o_O

[@morcjul]

A reflection of reality will always have more value but only if you know it's real. People on social media don't know, can't verify and mostly also don't care so we can basically pack our stuff

[@Featinwe]

@@morcjul this is exactly my point... we will be flooded with AI generated images soon, just like we were flooded with crazy sky replacement photos once AI sky replacement was introduced by Luminar I think. I'm glad I keep photography as a hobby not a main income source.

[@snaphaan5049]

Family photo's, weddings etc will still be around for a while. Wedding photography will start to decline due to drones and robotics. Think drones with the capacity to follow the bride, groom and family to photograph incredible moments with perfect exposure and compositions. Thinking machines. But that's still decades away.

[@MrDan1509]

That action part at the end will be handy for chain-link fencing!

[@Robs_fan]

Generative fill can't be used for commercial purposes at this stage. That's what Adobe themselves say. So if you're selling stuff that has been touched by the hand of GF, you're in violation of Adobe's guidelines, and probably a few laws.

[@Cragfire]

I was about to mention this as well.. I was working on a personal project and got the warning that my image violated terms.. and any generations would be blocked. So I followed the link. That's were I read about commercial use. Kinda sucks but hopefully lifted 'soon' I'd imagine / hope. As far as why my image was in violation, i could never find a reason that fell into one on their list. It Is what it is. Guess Adobe Ai just dose not like the idea of a anthropomorphic Rhino wearing a leather jacket...

[@FStoppers]

I’m curious how they will uphold this. The courts so far have said that if Ai has been used then there is no copyright holder which would be bad for the photographer but would also mean Adobe couldn’t make an argument either. I’m sure if you register your original imagery without the Ai, you would still retain lots of legal protection on the elements that are not Ai. I’m curious to see how Adobe handles this and what the legal ramifications would be if you did continue to use their GF commercially. It should be an interesting topic to cover as time goes on. -P

[@0741921]

How are they gonna know? They've also had generative fill without ai forever now. Obv Adobe is gonna try to scare customers into not using this to make lif easier. Go ahead and use it commercially for your hearts desires

[@FStoppers]

@@0741921that is my thought as well but honestly, it’s in their interest to allow and encourage photographers to use it commercially. That’s the whole point of having a PS subscription over a free, less professional editor. -P

[@blender_tom]

​@@FStoppers They say you will be able to use it for commercial use when it's out of beta later this year

[@PugAshen]

Remember, the generation is limited to 1024 by 1024. More will leave more blur, so when generating, make sure to not extend beyond 1024 pixels either way.

[@killll]

yeah, but if he mentions this in the video, he couldn't show us all the cool things, that in real world szenario doesn't work XD

[@donnawetter1513]

It still won't replicate the image noise, so 1:1 is a problem, but scaled for web is great. And working in the already blurred background is mostly fine.

[@CostaMesaPhotography]

I'm so excited to see Generative Fill come to the production version. I downloaded the Beta, but then started having issues when using in conjunction with Lightroom. I ended up uninstalling the Beta version and then really started having problems with what LR Classic thought my default editor was... took an uninstall and reinstall to "reset" things... I was near panic. So for me, no more Beta... Can't wait for the production version!! And really great video Patrick--stunning results too!

[@adrianestrada8099]

Same here waiting on product release ..Any release date?

[@Alexi-ze4qg]

Generative fill and the rest of the ai technology is truly amazing. But what few people mention is that current resolution standards are not professional grade. 1024 x 1024 is not commercial grade res. But I'm sure it will get there and ai will change the nature of imaging even more then the transition from film to digital. It's already throwing the creative job market into disarray and it's either jump in the boat or drown.

[@m0nztam0nk]

Hmm...ill wait a few years when "untouched" RAW photography becomes "in" and the new trend..(when its worth mentioning that a photo was NOT AI-generated/manipulated)... :) I REALLY dislike the AI-makes it look real even tho it never was like that... i feel it damages Photographys role as a documentation but thats just me...

[@DanScott1]

I hear you.

[@Grr8jon]

Yup. We're embracing everything fake.

[@donnawetter1513]

It also works great fixing shiny overexposed skin patches.

[@terrybrooks395]

It didn't "change your photography" you have a different hobby now, it's not photography by any definition.

[@snaphaan5049]

Exactly. I like the aboce comment... Fakegraphy.

[@imviiku]

Hey Man , just watched your Crohn's Disease video . How are you now since you started your Biological Injections ? An update on your condition would be great

[@FStoppers]

I'm doing really well. I'm still on Humira and trucking along. I hope you are doing well since I'm guessing you only found that video because you were recently diagnoses with Crohn's? Hope all is well friend! -P

[@DanScott1]

Needed that ladder for balance.

[@listonheinz9103]

I’m so glad I’m an amateur and hobbyist who takes pictures of things for my own enjoyment.

[@MainBarengMax]

thats so amazing! i just wonder about the result.. its printable ? the detail is fine ?

[@M1MUZ1K]

So photoshop gurus are a species in danger of extinction

[@malcolmcampbell3234]

Hi - thank you very much for this. One question - at the final tip - 15:40 - you flipped the middle image of 3 to correct light direction but video skips to after you have used gen fill without showing how you did it - is it just me?

[@FStoppers]

I just selected a little bit of both images and let Gen Fill do it's think. I didn't think it needed a bunch of explaining at that point of the video. -P

[@maverickmyrtlebeach]

Great composite fill. Mt Washington New Hampshire. I took 5 shorts of the hotel, road leading in ,small lake with the background of the Mountain of Mt. Washington. Stitch them old school it took about 5 hours. After taking out mailbox,tele wires and bleeds.. Wish I had those tools then.

[@Paul-iq6pw]

Have you tried the new remove tool? No need to use gen fill to remove the ladder or hairs.

[@kalliemj]

I’m unclear about what tool you used for the last image where you were blending the rocky background. Did you use generative fill and write a prompt or did you use something else?

[@FStoppers]

Yes, gen fill and an action to automate the correct size blocks. -P

[@jessejohnson3138]

"Yes you did commit that crime," "but I wasn't there" if we say you was, then you was there" this stuff should scare everyone...

[@moghali22]

Very cool. Going to have to experiment a lot with this.

[@PhilUKNet]

It wasn't that long ago when Content Aware seemed like an amazing feature. Where's all this going to end? Soon, it won't be necessary to take any photos in the first place. Just tell AI what you want.

[@snaphaan5049]

Not sure if you are following AI developments in photography but there is software in development that can read a 2D scene and allow you to change the lighting as you want. Softboxes, gels, rimlights etc. It's basically creating a 3D mockup of the scene. It's gonna come with a price though.

[@PhilUKNet]

@snaphaan5049 I don't really follow it, but thanks for the heads up! It's incredible technology, but this will basically put highly skilled photographers out of business. I've messed around with basic studio lights and Speedlites for years, but this knowledge and skill will become irrelevant if you can change lighting setups in post. Human models will also become unnecessary at some stage. Where's it all going to end?!

[@acamilop]

It’s changing my work. I’ve been using it to put in people in architectural photography.

[@dekebell3307]

WOW! Really, really incredible work!

[@DanteJDM]

I kinda wish people would discover AI for themselves and how it fits into their workflow instead of the industry being manipulated by these YT videos glamorizing it and "forcing" people into it. In a couple's years time we're going to wish we took the process of handing the keys over to AI slower. I like AI art and love playing with it, but I think this is happening too fast for our own good.

[@FStoppers]

Is that not exactly what I did in this video? Sure I glamorized the ways I like to use it but it seems counter intuitive to show you the times it messes up when I’m showing you the successes. -P

[@DanteJDM]

@@FStoppers That's actually a very fair response. I'm just watching a broader scope of AI-focused content being released, but I suppose I was wrong about the perspective of this video or your talking points about it. Am I right in being afraid of it "taking over" or do you think the trend will settle down and just become another (more advanced) daily tool?

[@dakara4877]

@@DanteJDM There is no "settle down" with AI innovation. I think this is the very key component most advocates are missing. Unlike all other technological disruptions, this just continues to accelerate. There is no stabilization or adaption period. I've written a piece on this topic FYI, you can find it googling 'AI art mind prison'

[@snaphaan5049]

Yeah, but those messes are gonna get less and less. The tech is advancing faster than we can comprehend. What about software that can read a 2D scene and allow you to change the lighting as you want. Softboxes, gels, rimlights etc. It will basically create a 3D mockup of a scene. Not impossible. I@@FStoppers

[@DanScott1]

YT Mediocrity wet dream, 'makes your life so much easier'. And so few seem to get the underlying issue. I'm with this chap further down the comments: @m0nztam0nk 2 hours ago Hmm...ill wait a few years when "untouched" RAW photography becomes "in" and the new trend..(when its worth mentioning that a photo was NOT AI-generated/manipulated)... :) I REALLY dislike the AI-makes it look real even tho it never was like that... i feel it damages Photographys role as a documentation but thats just me... ---------------------------- I hear ya, sorta like this in a few years time after that race to the bottom when it's all fantasically FAKE and people start to wonder what real looks like any more. Please Note: All photographs in this book, exhibition, magazine, web site, social page NOT AI-generated/manipulated.

[@FStoppers]

I don’t think unretouched raws will ever become back “in” in this way you image. It’s like saying one day Vinyl records will be in or owning an original muscle car will be in or watching movies on VHS or BlueRay will be in. Once the tech has passed, sure some people will buy and appreciate those older forms of media and nostalgia but 99% of the population will still be using the newest and latest form of media, transportation, art etc. You have to ask if black and white film is suddenly the most preferred form of photography in response to digital photography? No it isn’t, not even by .001%. -P

[@DanScott1]

@@FStoppers LOL, I'm a fossil then. Thanks, appreciate the reply.

[@snaphaan5049]

@@FStoppers This is not gonna end well

[@90boiler]

In conclusion: Long live film photography.

[@mavfan1]

Only if you print it from the negatives.

[@90boiler]

@@mavfan1 absolutely

[@drsjamesserra]

With generative fill.

[@bmeclipse]

You can digitize film.

[@90boiler]

@@bmeclipse Digitising film is not AI manipulation where you don't need photographer's involvement at all.

[@bala1000mina]

Thank you so much Patrick! Very helpful and informative tutorial on Generative Fill. God bless you and good luck!

[@puneetmaheshwari]

thanks for that photshop cafe channel

[@oscarmasciandaro8439]

So at what point does it cease to be photography and begin to be illustration?

[@FStoppers]

It ceased to be photography 30 years ago when we abandoned film. One could argue even film photography isn’t “reality” or “truth”. -P

[@TheumbrellaMG]

@@FStoppers I love ya fstoppers, but that’s crap 😜 digital or film if I click my camera I’m only capturing what’s in front of me, not my imagination once transferred to photoshop. I would love to see how one could argue that film photography isn’t reality

[@snaphaan5049]

@@FStoppers But if we don't impose some regulation then where is this gonna end? But the MASSIVE issue with regulation is... it will be a truth or principle imposed by a regulating body or government that might in fact be hiding the real truth. Through tech advancements we have created a prison of lies for ourselves. And it's just gonna get worst.

[@shrug_shrugsly]

Already familiar with this tool, but was nice to see how you used it. Click bait of a title though, which is icky. But will keep an open mind.

[@Macci96]

So what's the point of taking pictures?

[@FStoppers]

To feed them into the Ai software, duh! -P

[@snaphaan5049]

​@@FStoppers Fuck. That joke has too much truth.

[@GA-uv4hy]

You are so happy, like you created the algo, but not :D

[@RoboMagician]

is this photoshop the latest version of its beta?

[@cineguz]

Humanity is loosing mental expertise.

[@rajajinnah6749]

Hi Patrick. Huge fan of you and Lee. Waiting for the new video collab/tutorial with Elia Locardi

[@FStoppers]

Soon! Like very soon 😊 -P

[@RonK]

Hope you understand now, why Adobe was pushing so hard to have all artists store their images in Adobe Cloud - all those pictures were the fundamental source for Photo Shop's A.I (or rather "deep learning") - so fragments of a gazillion images were used while learning - without asking for permission of the original creators.

[@DonGiannatti]

I believe it is indeed in their TOS for Adobe Stock.

[@barneylaurance1865]

Isn't it only the pictures sold in Adobe Stock, rather than anything saved using Adobe cloud storage services?

[@DonGiannatti]

@@barneylaurance1865 Yes, that is what I was referring to. They do NOT use the images from cloud storage. As I said, Adobe Stock.

[@FStoppers]

People say this but I’ve tried my hardest to reference actual Adobe stock images, their creator, their keywords, their ID number to try to force Gen Fill to use assets from that specific image all with no luck whatsoever. I don’t think GF is using Adobe Stock as systematically as people think it is. -P

[@heyzoltan_cgi]

90% of Adobe's new features from the past 5 years are trying to impress the amateur crowd with lot's of cringey stuff. All the things the Ai can do, a person with skills can do it too, definitely slower but staying in control. One of the main things people forget is using any Ai tool, GF etc. the user is NOT in control.

[@FStoppers]

I’m not sure I could create that mountain scene or an ocean extension that looked that good. -P

[@TheFaustianMan]

This is pretty impressive! Did you use Ai to replace her simian grip with normal toes or did you have stock toes ready to replace. Wow she must have been quite nervous with that dexterous toe grip! edit Oh nvm, I see you answered already. Stunning image!

[@Rene-cm6go]

I have noticed when I had played with AI GF this new extended part is always blurry.. Is it my fault or it is that normal?

[@FStoppers]

Watch the video; I address this -P

[@Rene-cm6go]

@@FStoppers I have already.. but I didn't notice.. thanks!

[@minibuns5397]

Un-copyrightable… hold my beer

[@robertfeliciano5723]

Speaking of AI, some DeNoise on the audio would have been helpful. bzzzzzzzzzzz.

[@FStoppers]

Hmmmm, I need to listen to it on headphones. No clue why there would be noise. -P

[@FStoppers]

I do hear it on my headphones. I think the mic is picking up the laptop fan on the table. This is my first video from this new studio setup so I’ll fix it for the next one. -P

[@avaizhashmi]

What? This is not PBS SPATETIME?

[@Giles29]

Well, for better or worse these tools are here to stay. I can't afford Adobe's prices to play with them more, but I don't see this changing, except for the generative images to become more advanced. So we, as photographers, have to adapt. Not really a choice. On one level, I love this stuff. On another level... well, I am a bit dubious.

[@nesterov_ph]

You don't need to buy Adobe, just steal it from torrents 😂

[@hedonismbot3274]

​​@@nesterov_phthe ai stuff only works online tho ? And the photography pack is 12 bucks or so ? That is acceptable. And then there's the chance of catching yourself a virus 😁

[@nesterov_ph]

@@hedonismbot3274 the ai works very well, no viruses. Hello from Russia

[@FQ8]

Adding your own sky (or any image) was not something I have not seen before..COOL!

[@TheumbrellaMG]

And now look! 😄 ai headshots for $17 👍🏾👍🏾👍🏾 let’s just deem this industry obsolete rn.

[@Blaidd905]

I found the new generate feature did a great job of filling in a pano I had done by hand of a beach sunrise. So much quicker and better than trying to fill by hand and I didn’t have to crop out the unfilled areas.

[@v_stands_for_value124]

We'll need certificates for real photos in less than a year, otherwise it will all get fkd up

[@FStoppers]

What would a certificate verify? That a photo is 100% real? That's it's been edited 5%? That it's been edited 50%? That the composite work was done by a human or by Ai? -P

[@snaphaan5049]

Sounds like the end of photography. We are living in a lie. @@FStoppers

[@denniszenanywhere]

One thing it cannot do is put a person on clothes. I tried for one half day and used different tools -- it's not yet possible.

[@FStoppers]

Put clothes on a person or put a person inside photos of clothes? I’ve added clothes to people pretty easily. -P

[@denniszenanywhere]

@@FStoppers Ok, glad you found a way. Please share because I spent an entire day putting in brand after brand of clothes on a stock image and I couldn't make it work. What's easy is putting ANY clothes, but not specific brands. If you figured it out, please share how as I need to put in specific brands on a stock image for a client. Thanks

[@Kryptonic83]

12:23 her feet magically get replaced :D

[@FStoppers]

Haha, I noticed that too. I originally composited a different foot frame back when this image was taken but for this video I somehow grabbed the original file straight out of camera. The foot replacement was my doing eeeek -P

[@theothersmith9570]

The 500k views of the other video was thanks to the masterful choice of thumbnail.

[@FStoppers]

That and the timing...the video came out 48 hours within the release of GF. -P

[@stevekesedakisstormchasing7031]

Big nooooo

[@maryk8127]

Wow!

[@r.tintifax4723]

in some years,.... the ai replaced most of the photographer.

[@snaphaan5049]

Yeah. It's only a matter of time. Think AI powered drones (or robots - ha!) that can fly around and find terrific compositions. They can act like second shooters at a wedding. Oh wait... they will be the only shooters. Fuck

[@canturgan]

End of Job.

[@BintyMcFrazzles]

Thanks.

[@markrussell4682]

If you're photoshopping your digital.images, you are NOT doing photography.

[@0741921]

Photography is taking a picture. Photoshopping is editing said picture. Pretty simple don't you think?

[@markrussell4682]

@@0741921 No, I don't. Photography is what one accomplishes in the camera. What you do after that is not photography.

[@nominalegg5865]

If you're using Photoshop as a verb, you're not a photographer.

[@simonmeeds1886]

If you are talking about editing (I don't use Photoshop) then that's what was done in the darkroom and on the retouching desk long before anyone went digital.

[@markrussell4682]

@@simonmeeds1886 What was possible in the darkroom was nothing like what is possible with programs like Photoshop. I was a US Navy Photographer in the 80s, and for a short time recently, I did some real estate photography. I regularly has real estate agents ask me if I could "replace" a three-tab roof with architectural shingles, vinyl windows with wooden windows, if I could make holes in sheetrock "disappear", etc. That isn't photography.

[@extropy1]

To my eye this looks really disjointing and bad

[@snaphaan5049]

Because you saw what he did. Otherwise you would not have noticed anything.

[@HotWheelsATL]

👍🏾

[@matthiasice]

This ain't it. Either this comment or this video will age like milk. Honestly, I hope the video.

[@FStoppers]

Ha why do you say that? We are all using AI gen fill more than ever. I think most photographers have become more reliant on it than I even though when this video was made. -P

[@matthiasice]

@@FStoppers Besides some feeling of it just not being right when taken to the extreme (like generating extra content outside of the captured frame), there are some potential legal issues down the line. My reasoning for avoiding generative fill is the same reason the software company I work at avoids AI coding assistance. There may come a time where there could be some copyright issues with generative AI. I don't want anything I do to have that potential ticking time bomb built into it. That's why it could be my comment or the video that ages like milk.

[@FStoppers]

I'm not sure how that will work out. There is no legal precedence for AI generated art so far and I have no idea how anyone could prove any assets came from their work. Look at my featured image here; the AI generated expanded canvas looks exactly like this scene. I'm not sure how it is generating that but it could be using my own image or some other data set but either way, I don't think anyone could prove definitively that the generated pixels are built from their own copyrighted work. -P

[@matthiasice]

@@FStoppers it's definitely a more nebulous use of generative AI than code generation. Code generation could probably be more easily identified by somebody as "hey that's eerily similar to my code". Personally, with image generation, I don't THINK there's ever going to be a way for somebody to track it and say "hey that's my chunk of forest". But I do see the potential for lawsuits, justified or not. IIRC, Photoshop does also add "Made with AI" metadata to your image if you use gen fill. Could become an issue if competitions, awards, galleries, etc start banning anything that uses AI. I'm not as plugged in to that scene, but I'm curious if you guys have seen anything like that.

[@archie2.8]

I just stopped retouching my photos and focusing on the creating images what don't need to be retouched at all to distance my works from AI crap. Now I only hide skin blemishes.