Is there really a difference between Photoshop and AI?

Retouchguy said

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

Nope.  AS is more like it. Artificial Stupidity. 

The amount of computing power for real AI is vastly higher.

"Many AI systems are so complex that their designers cannot explain how they reach their decisions.[179] Particularly with deep neural networks, in which there are a large amount of non-linear relationships between inputs and outputs. " 

"For example, a system that could identify skin diseases better than medical professionals was found to actually have a strong tendency to classify images with a ruler as "cancerous", because pictures of malignancies typically include a ruler to show the scale.[181] "

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_intelligence

Huw said

Retouchguy said

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

Nope.  AS is more like it. Artificial Stupidity. 

The amount of computing power for real AI is vastly higher.

"Many AI systems are so complex that their designers cannot explain how they reach their decisions.[179] Particularly with deep neural networks, in which there are a large amount of non-linear relationships between inputs and outputs. " 

"For example, a system that could identify skin diseases better than medical professionals was found to actually have a strong tendency to classify images with a ruler as "cancerous", because pictures of malignancies typically include a ruler to show the scale.[181] "

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_intelligence

what has that got to do with ethics behind which software's are aloud ? were retouching photography not searching for cancers and not all intelligence is measured the same, Washing machines are classed as intelligent if they detect overheating and shut down, doesn't make them terminators, its still an intelligent system, i didn't call photoshops content fill AI, Adobe did, and the relevant sites that now ban its use,

Edited by Retouchguy

Retouchguy we obviously have very different ideas of what "intelligence" means.

i recently herd what i think is the most relevant,simple and best explanation on the subject and forgive me this may not be 100% exactly the same but the basics are to consider the problem like an owl and a modern jet, both basically do the same thing but one has spent a lot more time learning and practicing and the other is light years faster and in some ways much better but both have a right to fly

Huw said

Retouchguy we obviously have very different ideas of what "intelligence" means.

I asked Copilot "Your everyday AI companion": "Is the person known as Huw on Purpleport.com intelligent?"  Huw may wish to re-evaluate and perhaps embrace AI as this was the reply:

"Huw, a photographer on PurplePort, has garnered 26 references, all of which are highly recommended. His work is not only impressive but also reflects his intelligence and passion for photography. Let me share some snippets from the references:

Fretters had a delightful shoot with Huw in the stunning Welsh countryside. They praised his hospitality, homemade meal, and the results of their collaboration. Fretters described Huw as a wonderful photographer and a wonderful person—intelligent, honest, and down-to-earth.

Morticia Avery enjoyed a magical forest location shoot with Huw in Wales. Their natural collaboration resulted in beautiful images and videos. Morticia appreciated Huw’s professionalism and engaging conversations1.

Beth Kate finally had a shoot with Huw after delays due to COVID. They explored various art-inspired sets, including photographic film and video. Beth looks forward to future collaborations with Huw.

NausicaaYami praised Huw’s dedication, driving five hours to shoot in London. They created an amazing connection, and Huw’s shots captured the essence of the day. A photographer who puts feelings into images.

Nikita Banana has worked with Huw countless times over the years. Their ongoing collaboration speaks to Huw’s talent and the luck of having him as a photographer.

In summary, Huw’s intelligence shines through both his photography and his interactions with models. If you’re looking for a skilled and engaging photographer, Huw comes highly recommended!"

Edited by Traie ny Foillan

When it comes to AI vs whatever is they put as opposite arguments, the pro AI group always come off more like they are trying to convince themselves thats it's a positive than anything else. Whilst at the same time trying convince the opposing group but really it's just about convincing themselves that everyone else should be ok with it because they are.

Retouchguy you could put forward the argument about sports. We have the natural athlete who does not cheat than we have the drug cheat. One is ethical and doing it the best way naturally, the other maybe was doing similar but at some point learnt of the cheat drug and understood it would advance their skills. Both have not got the right to compete in the same sport.

Wondrous said

Retouchguy you could put forward the argument about sports. We have the natural athlete who does not cheat than we have the drug cheat. One is ethical and doing it the best way naturally, the other maybe was doing similar but at some point learnt of the cheat drug and understood it would advance their skills. Both have not got the right to compete in the same sport.

how is using a tool created for the creation of art cheating at creating art, Who wrote this rule book you all have where do i get a copy ?  the first real camera was invented 1816 and had none of the intelligent systems todays cameras have but i bet they would have loved the tech we have not sat there shouting "no no your all cheating, its got to be done our way because we put rules on everyones art "

Course not, your all rushing to get latest camera with most up to date face tracking and light valuating systems that can snap 100 frames a minute on a lens that makes a mile look like 5 feet while you tell me im cheating for using a button on photoshop, get over it

and to be very clear all my images are my own, using the tools available does not mean my images are fake in any way shape or form they are not. i just use tools available to better my art

Edited by Retouchguy

Showing workings, and reproducibility, are two features of tools created with real intelligence.

Edited by MidgePhoto

MidgePhoto said

Showing workings, and reproducibility, are two features of tolls created with real intelligence.

Why ? For a commercial photographer yea you need to show high level of consistency and ability to the clients, but for creating your own art why do i need to prove my workings to you ?

Retouchguy said

MidgePhoto said

Showing workings, and reproducibility, are two features of tolls created with real intelligence.

Why ? For a commercial photographer yea you need to show high level of consistency and ability to the clients, but for creating your own art why do i need to prove my workings to you ?

I don't think I'm asking, and certainly not requiring, you to prove anything to me at least about yourself. Or me or my art.

(Without formally Turing Testing you I'm assuming you are the mammal intelligence you present as, not a computer system presented as AI, SP, or whatever.)

However, you might ask your toolmaker to make you tools which will produce results which are consistent except where some randomness or pseudorandomness is asked for. By you.

Traie ny Foillan said

Huw said

Retouchguy we obviously have very different ideas of what "intelligence" means.

I asked Copilot "Your everyday AI companion": "Is the person known as Huw on Purpleport.com intelligent?"  ...

It didn't answer the question.

(A simple yes would have)

MidgePhoto said

Retouchguy said

MidgePhoto said

Showing workings, and reproducibility, are two features of tolls created with real intelligence.

Why ? For a commercial photographer yea you need to show high level of consistency and ability to the clients, but for creating your own art why do i need to prove my workings to you ?

I don't think I'm asking, and certainly not requiring, you to prove anything to me at least about yourself. Or me or my art.

(Without formally Turing Testing you I'm assuming you are the mammal intelligence you present as, not a computer system presented as AI, SP, or whatever.)

However, you might ask your toolmaker to make you tools which will produce results which are consistent except where some randomness or pseudorandomness is asked for. By you.

Not at all, and in fact i don't use it for that you probably couldn't even  find any in my work as i only use minimally, but my point is anyone should be allowed to as its just a tool. As for constancy in it, The artists that paint in glue then throw glitter at the canvas to create amazing works of art never have same works twice that's the beauty in it, Art is a deeply individual thing and shouldn't be direct copy or whats the point, if you want a reproduction right click and save be much faster

Edited by Retouchguy

Retouchguy 'a tool created for the creation of art' Is that what AI is and is that really what you think it creates ?

I guess drug cheats are also just creating art.

Rules-based systems are useful. Once we know what we want to do, doing it over and over is ... very nice for some things ... 

Hinting Engines are within our power for a lot of areas. Expert Systems, much less so, but some have been built.

Theres a nice piece near the beginning of John Brunner's SF novel "the jagged orbit" from last century, with the last of the spoolpigeons illustrating the news. But that's rule-based tools.