Is there really a difference between Photoshop and AI?

The "AI" on my editing suite is not very intelligent at all. It can only carry out simple tasks and cannot respond to the variations that I ask it to do. Really it is just another tool. When it works it is useful. Most of the time it doesn't

The only difference between Photoshop, infinity or any of the other manual software on the market and AI is = Time (fact)

Anything ai does can be done and has been getting done by most of us for 20 plus years in Photoshop without Ai, Ai just speeds things up.

A camera now tells you spot metering to help with light, if you have a flash hooked up it works that into equation, it tracks your models face, their eyes, it compresses the images and creates a raw output of millions of lines of code with meta data tags, Geo tags.Auto-focus and Scene Recognition, Intelligent Exposure Control, Smart Shooting Modes, blah blah blah etc etc etc

And now people (especially models) taking images with smart phones that have thousands of Ai software and filters attached.

People just need to accept some people like to do it one way but others have every right to do it the way they want, Not all painters use canvas or even a brush, Didn't hurt  Banksy

Andy Warhol : "Art is what you can get away with."

Ansel Adams : "You don't take a photograph, you make it."

 Just saying ....

Edited by Retouchguy

indemnity

Are eleven fingers better than ten?

Yes.

NFN.

Huw I think these are banned from PP to reduce no shows...;)

Edited by indemnity

indemnity said

Huw I think these are banned from PP to reduce no shows...;)

Edited by indemnity

MacMaghnuis said

Does the spot healing tool or the patch tool or the liquify filter count as AI these days? Is there a creative difference between photoshopping and image and creating an image using text?

 AI is not involved in both these tools, at least not yet, so no it doesn't.

Is there a creative difference between photoshopping and image and creating an image using text?

Yes, in one case there is something real that has been photographed and that you modify, in the other nothing is real at all, it's all artificially generated, photography is not even involved.

RaphaelPhoto said

MacMaghnuis said

Does the spot healing tool or the patch tool or the liquify filter count as AI these days? Is there a creative difference between photoshopping and image and creating an image using text?

 AI is not involved in both these tools, at least not yet, so no it doesn't.

Is there a creative difference between photoshopping and image and creating an image using text?

Yes, in one case there is something real that has been photographed and that you modify, in the other nothing is real at all, it's all artificially generated, photography is not even involved.

Ai is most definitely present in these tools and all tools in Photoshop, Spot healing Brush tool in Adobe Photoshop is an intelligent feature designed to remove unwanted objects, blemishes, or imperfections from an image seamlessly and it uses - Automatic Object Detection - Content-Aware Fill - Texture Matching - Edge Detection to automatically create pixals that were not present in the original image without user input = Artificial intelligence

Retouchguy said

..

Ai is most definitely present in these tools and all tools in Photoshop, Spot healing Brush tool in Adobe Photoshop is an intelligent feature designed to remove unwanted objects, blemishes, or imperfections from an image seamlessly and it uses - Automatic Object Detection - Content-Aware Fill - Texture Matching - Edge Detection to automatically create pixals that were not present in the original image without user input = Artificial intelligence

Algorithms labelled by marketing as AI, not actual AI.

We've had software capable of creating an image without an 'original' image as the basis for a long time, such rendering engines have been the mainstay of "1st person shooter" games. 
The tools within editing programs are just doing the same, but using the supplied image as a source for their algorithms, and extrapolating from that data to 'create' the new pixels.

Jonathan C said

Retouchguy said

..

Ai is most definitely present in these tools and all tools in Photoshop, Spot healing Brush tool in Adobe Photoshop is an intelligent feature designed to remove unwanted objects, blemishes, or imperfections from an image seamlessly and it uses - Automatic Object Detection - Content-Aware Fill - Texture Matching - Edge Detection to automatically create pixals that were not present in the original image without user input = Artificial intelligence

Algorithms labelled by marketing as AI, not actual AI.

We've had software capable of creating an image without an 'original' image as the basis for a long time, such rendering engines have been the mainstay of "1st person shooter" games. 
The tools within editing programs are just doing the same, but using the supplied image as a source for their algorithms, and extrapolating from that data to 'create' the new pixels.

use any label you like the software is basically the first edition of content aware everyone is freaking out about, it actually has a content aware algorithm so how is it different from the (AI) in content fill tool where a human actually has more input (not less) in the creation process

Question If nuerolink could create images should the site ban people with nuerolink implant ?

Ai is a brush, its a tool just like Photoshop is, like your camera is, your imagination is, Actually the only limit to your art has always been your imagination, now we've crossed that barrier everyone's afraid lol, use the tools or don't, everyone should be aloud to make there art how they feel it

Retouchguy said

Jonathan C said

Retouchguy said

..

Ai is most definitely present in these tools and all tools in Photoshop, Spot healing Brush tool in Adobe Photoshop is an intelligent feature designed to remove unwanted objects, blemishes, or imperfections from an image seamlessly and it uses - Automatic Object Detection - Content-Aware Fill - Texture Matching - Edge Detection to automatically create pixals that were not present in the original image without user input = Artificial intelligence

Algorithms labelled by marketing as AI, not actual AI.

We've had software capable of creating an image without an 'original' image as the basis for a long time, such rendering engines have been the mainstay of "1st person shooter" games. 
The tools within editing programs are just doing the same, but using the supplied image as a source for their algorithms, and extrapolating from that data to 'create' the new pixels.

use any label you like the software is basically the first edition of content aware everyone is freaking out about, it actually has a content aware algorithm so how is it different from the (AI) in content fill tool where a human actually has more input (not less) in the creation process

Which is sort of the point I was making earlier - "AI" in these products is simply being used as a marketing tool to label a clever algorithm - there is no "Artificial Intelligence" or "Machine Learning" involved.

The basic problem is that the term "AI" has been bandied about so much by marketing people that it's now completely meaningless and just confuses people, as can be seen in this thread.

The OP was, I think, referring to Generative AI, which is where an image is generated from a text description.   The word "Generative" is key - it means that the image has been generated as a (sort of) composite from the zillions of sample images the program was trained on. This is completely different from tools such as the Healing Brush or the Remove tool, which if they have any AI content at all (which is doubtful, they're just clever algorithms) are acting on an existing image by looking at patterns and colours in that image.

Gothic Image said

The basic problem is that the term "AI" has been bandied about so much by marketing people that it's now completely meaningless and just confuses people, as can be seen in this thread.

The OP was, I think, referring to Generative AI, which is where an image is generated from a text description.   The word "Generative" is key - it means that the image has been generated as a (sort of) composite from the zillions of sample images the program was trained on. This is completely different from tools such as the Healing Brush or the Remove tool, which if they have any AI content at all (which is doubtful, they're just clever algorithms) are acting on an existing image by looking at patterns and colours in that image.

No they are basically the same horse as Ive said, the healing brush uses content aware the same as content fill, the main difference is that the user has an input for the desired content to replace in content fill rather than the software taking textures from rest of image. the debate over what is or isn't ai is mute, its all about what people find acceptable tools for creating art, art isn't meant to be confined by rules as its directly associated with imagination the minute you create rules you put a chain on what can be achieved and you stifle imagination, i say let people do there art there way and just enjoy the show :-)

Edited by Retouchguy

Retouchguy said

Gothic Image said

The basic problem is that the term "AI" has been bandied about so much by marketing people that it's now completely meaningless and just confuses people, as can be seen in this thread.

The OP was, I think, referring to Generative AI, which is where an image is generated from a text description.   The word "Generative" is key - it means that the image has been generated as a (sort of) composite from the zillions of sample images the program was trained on. This is completely different from tools such as the Healing Brush or the Remove tool, which if they have any AI content at all (which is doubtful, they're just clever algorithms) are acting on an existing image by looking at patterns and colours in that image.

No they are basically the same horse as Ive said, the healing brush uses content aware the same as content fill, the main difference is that the user has an input for the desire content to replace with rather than the software taking textures from rest of image. the debate over what is or isnt ai is mute, its all about what people find acceptable tools for creating art, art isnt ment to be confined to rules as its directly associated with imagination the minute you create rules you put a chain on what can be achieved

No, they are NOT the same but I'm not going to continue an argument that has already been done to death in a previous thread.

Gothic Image said

Retouchguy said

Gothic Image said

The basic problem is that the term "AI" has been bandied about so much by marketing people that it's now completely meaningless and just confuses people, as can be seen in this thread.

The OP was, I think, referring to Generative AI, which is where an image is generated from a text description.   The word "Generative" is key - it means that the image has been generated as a (sort of) composite from the zillions of sample images the program was trained on. This is completely different from tools such as the Healing Brush or the Remove tool, which if they have any AI content at all (which is doubtful, they're just clever algorithms) are acting on an existing image by looking at patterns and colours in that image.

No they are basically the same horse as Ive said, the healing brush uses content aware the same as content fill, the main difference is that the user has an input for the desire content to replace with rather than the software taking textures from rest of image. the debate over what is or isnt ai is mute, its all about what people find acceptable tools for creating art, art isnt ment to be confined to rules as its directly associated with imagination the minute you create rules you put a chain on what can be achieved

No, they are NOT the same but I'm not going to continue an argument that has already been done to death in a previous thread.

Cameras have AI (or intelligent systems), Mobiles have AI - Load of AI (or intelligent systems) even web browsers have ai and filters now and (or intelligent systems) i can pick 10 images out of recents right now that have gone through Instagram filters or mobile filters of some kind. what percentage of fpi's have not been edited do you think ?  fact is people use them in there art because they like them, art is subjective isn't it, your not supposed to like it all that's the point, the minute you start saying some tools are ok but others are not you are excluding people,art and restraining imagination. 

of course these tools are different in the way they-re coded, they have different jobs but they both replace content, they both create pixels that did not exist before the button press. at the same time i can take an image with my phone and ask it to turn the head towards me (that's ok) I can tell it to remove a car or tree, that's fine, i can add filters to improve depth or color grade that's ok and can have software to automatically clean skin and change background all ok, so is it just photoshop :-) the industry standard tool being boycotted

Edited by Retouchguy