bsprague Loc: Lacey, WA, USA

"If you use more credits than allotted you can still use generative AI, the process will be slower. How slow? No idea.
You can purchase extra credits from Adobe $4.99 for 100, so they are not cheap."

$5 for a 100 is a nickel each. That seems cheap to me. If I make a single full sized print on my Canon Pro 100 it is $5. If you still shoot film it is $.25 or more every time you push the shutter button.

tgreenhaw

Klickitatdave Loc: Seattle Washington

It is confusing but what I have been able to learn is that the pricing plan will be based on which subscription plan you have. You will automatically receive a certain number of credits, (How many times that you can use the feature with priority status). Primary status means that your AI renderings will get priority status on Adobe's servers. In other words, if you run out of credits you will be still able to use the features but the processing will potentially be much slower.

I have the basic Photography plan so my monthly allotment of credits will be 250. New subscribers will only get 100 credits per month. If you have a more expensive plan then your allotment of credits will be larger. Regardless, if you want to continue to get faster results after running out of credits you will be able to purchase additional credits (100 more credits for $5 ?) through your Adobe account.

What is concerning is that every time that you use generative expand or fill it will cost you a credit. So, if you do not like the results that you get and hit the buttons for generative action it will cost you another credit. Yikes, that could really add up fast. Also, the resolution of the results is still not where it should be. What I have heard is that if you are only going to post your photos on social media no problem. But if you need a higher resolution for say printing your photo, the discrepancy between the generative fill and the original image will be noticeable. Apparently, there are workarounds to improve the resolution of generative fill/expand but I have not explored this yet.

The new pricing according to Adobe will start on November 1st so it will be useful to learn how to use these features in the next few weeks. Of course, all of this could change. Is using these features cheating? Some will argue that it is but in experimenting I have been able to significantly improve photos that benefited from a slight Generative expand so that they match more closely with what I wanted to accomplish when I took the shot. I have also used Generative Fill to create some pretty amazing composites. I am certain that there will be an endless debate on UHH over whether using these features represents a case of cheating.

terryMc Loc: Arizona's White Mountains

The resolution problem is the biggest concern of anyone who is going to use this commercially or for big prints and the only real workaround is to generate in blocks of 1024x1024 pixels. it will add up to a lot of credits pretty fast if you're doing a big image.

bsprague Loc: Lacey, WA, USA

"The new pricing according to Adobe will start on November 1st"

I don't see it as new pricing. It is still $10 per month. I see it as a new and different kind of feature. It requires server use. In one Adobe seminar it was explained that they don't know what the load on the servers will be. The solution for now is to "meter" use in a way that work can be done but an avalanche of use won't kill the system. Generative tools are only a small part of Photoshop. If you have to use them on every image, there may be other issues here!

bsprague Loc: Lacey, WA, USA

"anyone who is going to use this commercially or for big prints"

Commercial use implies delivering images for money. A nickel for each generative action should not be hard to recover. Generating 20 block of 1024x1024 pixels is a buck!

My largest prints are 13"x"19 on a Canon printer. Best guess is that ink and paper add up to five bucks for a print. That is comparable to lab costs for quality prints. The cost of a generative fill workflow would not effect the decision to invest the printing cost in an image worth hanging on the wall!

terryMc Loc: Arizona's White Mountains

Well, I feel the same way, but you know how many people think $10 bucks a month is a greed-driven ripoff, at least from what I've been hearing since the subscriptions stuff started. If Adobe is going to charge for something, it must be driven by Satan himself. Personally, I will just suffer the throttling if I use all my credits...

bsprague Loc: Lacey, WA, USA

"greed-driven ripoff"??

Somewhere around 20 million people willingly give them their fees.

The old boom or bust cycle that resulted from periodic upgrades caused an issue with steady, planned and effective development. A steady and dependable subscription cash flow keeps the product developers on a planned, deliberate course. We, the subscribers, are the beneficiaries of that routine, continued product improvement.

terryMc Loc: Arizona's White Mountains

It's obvious that I was very unclear in what I just said up there—I guess there was a lot of sarcasm.

So here it is again:

All I have heard since the day Adobe instituted the subscription model was about HOW GREED AT ADOBE DRIVES THEM TO ACTUALLY CHARGE MONTHLY FOR THE USE OF THEIR SOFTWARE.

People think they "owned" Photoshop before when all they owned was a license to use it under specific legal conditions. I think this attitude is nuts, but there are a ton of these people right here on UHH who say they will never succumb to the "greed" at Adobe (and they use that word) and pay a monthly fee. They would rather believe they "own" their unsupported ten+ year old version and that is preferable somehow to getting updates every time one is ready by "renting" the software. In the past, the every-18-months or so upgrades were probably more expensive than the $120 they pay per year now, but hey, if I can go off on a good factless conspiracy theory rant, why should I let reality get in my way?

I subscribed immediately, when the program first started, and I'll be there until I can't use my keyboard anymore.

A "professional" photographer I met shortly after the program started was using Ps Elements instead of Photoshop, because, she said: "I don't rent my software, I own it." That was the first time I heard that inane phrase, and it has been dutifully repeated by everyone after that who has no clue about what they're talking about.

Of course many of these people are the same ones who have no problem using cracks or sharing the version they "own" with all their friends, based on some ridiculous belief that all software should all be open code and freely distributed. This same "professional" related once about how "Probably the No. 1 Photoshop guru is Scott Kelby..." proving again that the less you know, the more you think you know. In fact, I think that's an actual condition...The Dunning-Krueger Effect I believe.

No, I don't believe that Adobe is any greedier than any large corporation, and I get a lot more value out of Photoshop at $10 a month than my subscriptions to MLB network, ESPN+ or Verizon Wireless, all of whom will drop me the first time I don't pay the bill. Many other softwares are going to the subscription model and while there may always be some free and cheap stuff available, it will never rival Photoshop, at least not in my opinion, and I have used many of the so-called "alternatives."

Have a nice day.

bsprague Loc: Lacey, WA, USA

We are not in any disagreement, at all! Well maybe one small part. I think the "ton" of users are the subscribers that see the value and that a few still enjoy taking their stand on subscriptions.

terryMc Loc: Arizona's White Mountains