Modern Work Flow, Speedy Results (latest PS, AI)

I think everyone is being a bit hard on spood, it's a good demonstration of what people are doing and we do see plenty of examples shared on PP. This was a fast edit, the back ground is great. How do you share images on here without adding them to your profile?

Great example of one of the many options AI gives those who choose to use it options for exploring and expressing their creativity.

Many stereotypes the female form, I did not choose overly long legs as it would fall into looking like Barbie with unnatural proportions. For me the proportions from the waist to foot and head are within normal range, not some 6f tall supermodel.

Edited by -sp●●n-

GPA6 agreed , forum is supposed to be open , and forum operators should be unbiased this is a good tutorial and will help people starting out with photoshop and also lets people see behind the curtain of how op creates his images

Interesting demo, but the light falling on the model doesn't match the lighting in the background, so looks very fake. It's a major challenge with compositing (AI or traditional). 

Try to use a background with better motivated lighting. 

I find making an AI background look realistic is just as hard as making a trad composite look plausible.

I use it for dull routine tasks - subject selection, background cleanup etc.

It’s sometimes useful for patching & filling but it’s hard to tell in advance whether it will prove useful. I’ve abandoned as many attempts to use it as I have completed.

Russ Freeman said

-sp●●n- said

Russ Freeman said

It's a wonderful tool, I love it.

I'd rather see the skills of a photographer on a photography site, and creations like this just seem weird in uncanny valley ways. Something about the angles and lighting I can't quite put my eleven fingers on.

I guess a large part of my dislike for such creations is because they fundamentally lack integrity, and that is important to me.

There is skill in part, it is a real model, with real clothes, I would have liked not to have to replace legs, but back when this photo was taken, I had cramped room and a 50mm lens (a guess) to play with and that is all which was captured. The lighting setup was bespoke, model stood in middle of 5 mini lights. Until now this photo was 0...1..'s on a HDD because there was no easy way of bringing it out on how I wanted to present it, I could have kept it black, that is not my thing (first model I shot was that in a studio), I prefer the scene, to transport somewhere else, a creative process, I am not pretending to be anything than an amateur, it is not my day job and grabbing a few hours here and there is all I can afford.

AI can lift my level of output up, it is an enabler, just as when PS appeared, it opened the door to image manipulation which previously was only available to well financed studios. I know this site is about connecting models and photographers, and AI can remove the model which is not what this site is about, however if there is a real model, and real photographer then the tools used to bring capture to final should be welcomed.

If the job is to churn out images for a client at the cheapest rate and fast as possible, then I totally understand why you would want to get the process finished quickly, but when it's for fun it makes no sense to me.

It makes me think that we do need a way to mark such images so people aren't fooled into thinking you and the model were in that scene and took the time to pose, light, and compose it as displayed.

It does remind me that Amazon now restricts self-publishing authors to just three books per day because they are swamped by AI generated content. I bet they wanted to say "three crappy, banal, AI-written books per day" but that would have given their game away.

It's your trainset Russ but why is this any different to compositing prior to ai tools?

When it works well it is very useful.

JPea outstanding image, I take the value of the image on the image itself and that’s a great example. Beautiful. With the exception of autofill ai just uses tools already available in photoshop, but it’s clearly going to be a big part of the industry in the future. Great to see people creating great images with it, it is after all just another tool in the box

Retouchguy I think you may have misunderstood, I absolutely agree with Russ and his stance on the subject, I feel that this thread is just a demonstration of what people are doing. Since defending spoon I have taken a look at his portfolio and in my view it's just wrong. His images are what they are but shouldn't be in a photography portfolio on a site like this.

JPea this is great, I'd love to see the orginal

GPA6 said

JPea this is great, I'd love to see the orginal

Me too.  Excellent final image.

GPA6 so create a new sub category of user or ban everyone that’s not photographer model or mua , but ai is a part of photoshop and Lightroom now it’s not going away it’s just a tool in the box and people will use it, maybe just a little for some maybe a lot for others, saying it’s not real won’t make it go away.

You will find most are using it, maybe just to correct small issues in backdrops or background etc or maybe just correcting small bruise or mark it really doesn’t matter, it’s getting used, picking on someone for using it more than others seems a little unfair to me, if it’s not allowed then stipulate total ban (not sure how it’s policeable) but at least we would know, but then you need to remove retouchers and artists because they or we would be in same category

GPA6 said

Retouchguy I think you may have misunderstood, I absolutely agree with Russ and his stance on the subject, I feel that this thread is just a demonstration of what people are doing. Since defending spoon I have taken a look at his portfolio and in my view it's just wrong. His images are what they are but shouldn't be in a photography portfolio on a site like this.

Why? they are all of real models, shot with a real camera, mainly shot in a studio. Effects of transporting images/video have been around 50+ years:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/films/0/how-ray-harryhausen-made-jason-and-the-argonauts-come-alive/#:~:text=%E2%80%9CAfter%20filming%20a%20stuntman%20jump,retrieve%20them%2C%E2%80%9D%20Harryhausen%20wrote. 

BTW, all images on my profile except the last 5 were done the old fashioned way, of compositing using PS, the results are not believable, but I not aim for reality, if you want one which you could not tell, I can generate that.

Edited by -sp●●n-

-sp●●n- said

GPA6 said

Retouchguy I think you may have misunderstood, I absolutely agree with Russ and his stance on the subject, I feel that this thread is just a demonstration of what people are doing. Since defending spoon I have taken a look at his portfolio and in my view it's just wrong. His images are what they are but shouldn't be in a photography portfolio on a site like this.

Why? they are all of real models, shot with a real camera, mainly shot in a studio. Effects of transporting images/video have been around 50+ years:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/films/0/how-ray-harryhausen-made-jason-and-the-argonauts-come-alive/#:~:text=%E2%80%9CAfter%20filming%20a%20stuntman%20jump,retrieve%20them%2C%E2%80%9D%20Harryhausen%20wrote. 

BTW, all images on my profile except the last 5 were done the old fashioned way, of compositing using PS, the results are not believable, but I not aim for reality, if you want one which you could not tell, I can generate that.

Edited by -sp●●n-

spoon, no disrespect intended but they were created in the same way as you're trilogy image. They are effectively images that were regenerated from an image (a heavily modified one at that)