goldstar46 Loc: Tampa, Fl

===================================

bsprague Loc: Lacey, WA, USA

I certainly like the image!

I read yesterday that Adobe uses images from their millions of stock photos. As the Firefly system transitions out of Beta to real life, they plan a system where the originators of the stock photos will get some sort of compensation. That implies that when it hits the real world, there will be a cost to using the Firefly powered system.

It will be interesting to watch this unfold.

Ednsb Loc: Santa Barbara

I’ve been trying all the AI chatbots and especially with the generative fill feature in the Photoshop Beta. There are a ton of videos out there showing what it can do. I decided I wanted to make a book cover for an e-book. I used ChatGPT to create the prompt then created a blank canvas in Photoshop, selected all, clicked on generative fill, pasted the chatGPT prompt and got:

The prompt was: Title: Moons of Destiny

Description:
The book cover features a powerful heroine standing before a mesmerizing backdrop of three celestial moons, symbolizing the fateful path she must navigate in a captivating sci-fi adventure.

terryMc Loc: Arizona's White Mountains

There are many rumors going around, of course, but the YouTube gurus mostly seem to think that Adobe is honestly committed to some type of compensation for the photos used to train the AI. I have seen different numbers for the images in question, up to 300,000,000, all of which Adobe has rights to. There is purportedly no mining the web for copyrighted images. It is my understanding that the actual images are not used to create your prompted image, but only for training the AI, after which it generates an entirely new, never-before-seen image.

I don't know what I don't know, of course, so I guess we just wait and see. One thing is certain: There will be a charge for this service once it becomes available for commercial use at high resolution. We hobbyists can only hope that it isn't out of reach...

Curmudgeon Loc: SE Arizona

It is important for all to remember that an AI picture is computer generated. It is not as if the AI site chooses a picture, applies modifications and presents an image. The image is a very sophisticated composite created by algorithms I don't pretend to understand. The picture is unique and did not even exist until someone asked for it.

As far as pictures go I have only two criteria: I like it or I don't like it. That decision is a gut level reaction that requires no analyses on my part and I really don't care if it taken by a top of the line Canon or Nikon or a cell phone. If you want to tell me how a picture was created feel free to do so. If you want to deceive me like Ansel Adams did with Moon Over Half Dome feel free to that too. It's your picture to create in any manner you wish and my decision to like it or not.

Ednsb Loc: Santa Barbara

my 2 cents - some of the features called AI (actually not AI but rather Machine Learning) are very helpful in processing photographic images faster and maybe better. If the image is significantly modified, in my opinion, it is now graphic art not photography. Where that line is crossed is very fuzzy. For instance, adding a sky or a kind of a composite is changing what the photographer shot within his camera. A purist would say that is no longer a photograph. I am a purist. I label any image is modify to have elements not in the original image as art. Unfortunately for me being an old fart most of the world doesn’t care. I started my photography career shooting sports and journalism. we were not allowed to even crop an image for journalism.

I am impressed Adobe is spearheading adding content to the metadata of images listing what has been done to it with a certification. Unfortunately ,that consortium has not be adapted even though most of the heavy hitters belong to it. This ‘AI’ push may make that happen faster but again most of the world doesn’t care and certainly the bad actors out there will create fake images without certification.

bsprague Loc: Lacey, WA, USA

"As far as pictures go I have only two criteria: I like it or I don't like it." Exactly!

"It's your picture to create in any manner you wish and my decision to like it or not." Perfect!

joecichjr Loc: Chicago S. Suburbs, Illinois, USA

And this is fake as well: 💰💰💰

Flyerace Loc: Mt Pleasant, WI

bdk: Your beautiful girl has a problem with her left eye. The pupil and cornea are pointed toward the top of her head. Little things like that immediately give away the "fakeness" of many AI creations. The volcano pic is considerably better. I'm quite amazed at the things we can manipulate through AI.. I don't expect it will be too long before they will be as good as a photo.

terryMc: If I didn't read that you created this through AI, I might have missed the things that give it away. See, they've improved it already!