Photoshop Cs6 Beta Download
Everardo Frost
Description: Problem Description: Lowering the Fill Opacity of a layer in Hard Mix blend mode in Ps beta 23.2.0 produces markedly different results than in Ps 23.1.1 and all previous versions of Ps as well
I shared this blog post last May after Adobe released an update to Photoshop Beta introducing Generative Fill technology powered by Firefly, the company's AI text-to-image generator. The company didn't take long to continue adding improvements, including the Generative Expand functionality, which was especially helpful for photographers. In September, Adobe officially rolled Generative Fill out of beta and into the production version, making it available to all Photoshop users.
Whether or not this technology appeals to you is clearly a matter of personal preference. My stance on AI is pretty straightforward. This train has left the station and is rapidly gaining speed. It is one of the most disruptive types of technology since the internet, and it will be one of those things you will not be able to avoid. As such, I believe it's important, even critical, to understand how it works and whether it should be added to your photo workflow.
You shouldn't take that as me advocating for you to begin using AI as part of your editing workflow. Rather, you should first familiarize yourself with its capabilities and then decide whether it has a place in your toolkit.
Of course, you can ignore my recommendation and write this technology off for philosophical or moral reasons, and that's fine. Just know this train is moving very fast, and you may as well keep your eyes open to see where it's headed.
This leads me to Adobe's most recent update to Photoshop Beta (April 2024). The headline feature is that Generative Fill and Generative Expand now use Firefly 3, allowing you to "create higher-quality images with better composition, photorealistic details, and improved mood and lighting." You can now also use your own files as reference images, helping to guide Firefly in the objects it generates from your text prompts. There's even more to it than that, and the implications for photographers keep getting larger.
The weekly newsletter for Lightroom users who want to take better photos with any camera (especially the one in their pocket), edit on any device, and streamline their gear. Sign up for free!
Generative Fill was all over the news when it was announced. I watched the live podcast by Scott Kelby because I had to for my job. His reaction to the possibilities was over the top and funny at best. The internet and social media went wild. The end of photography was nigh. Just add a few keywords inside the Generative Fill option in Photoshop Beta and we would never need a camera ever again.
Generative Fill can be seen as the next step in cleaning up an image. At first, we had to use all kinds of clone tools and healing brushes to remove unwanted elements in a photo. Then, we got Content Aware Fill, which could remove object while keeping the background reasonably intact. Often, it needed a finishing touch, but it worked quite well. With Generative Fill, this process has never been easier.
There are limits. Something no one seems to talk about is the maximum resolution at this moment. It generates an image with a maximum of 1,024 x 1,024 pixels. If the area you want to fill is larger, it will stretch the generated content. This will result in a lower resolution.
There is a work-around, of course. But it takes a lot of effort to produce a good result, more than many are willing to spend. In other words, most results we see on the internet will be low-resolution images, but with high resolution, it becomes a mess if not done properly and with attention. The limits will probably be solved once it passes the from the beta version into the regular Photoshop version.
Another caveat is the problem with living beings. Generating animals does not result in very convincing content. For persons, it can be even worse. Generated faces and limbs can be misformed or not in the right perspective. When viewed at low resolution, it may seem okay, but in high-resolution images, it becomes obvious.
One thing Generative Fill does quite well is removing unwanted objects from the frame. Often, this can be done because the generated area is small enough to stay within the 1,080 x 1,080-pixel limit. But be aware of larger areas in the frame. Keep an eye on the details to keep it realistic.
I have a few examples of some practical uses for Generative Fill. They show the strength of this new tool in Photoshop, but they also show that it's nothing more than a new toy everyone just wants to play with for a while.
This is one of the most talked about features of Generative Fill, of course. Take an existing photo and add things to make it a more interesting photo to look at. One of the best examples is adding a reflective surface or a pond in the front of the image. Previously, you needed third-party software for a quick solution. Now, it can be done with Generative Fill.
One thing to keep in mind is how the world is reflected. Often it looks fake, like in the example below, so you have to manipulate the generated content for the best result. It can be fun to do, but just like adding sunrays in Luminar, it becomes a gimmick soon enough.
If you want to change the orientation of your image, you can extend the canvas and fill it with Generative Fill. At first glance, it does an amazing job, but only with low-resolution images. If you have larger resolution, add content in chunks of 1,024 x 1,024 pixels. It takes a lot of time, but the results will be better.
If you have two photos, Generative Fill can seemingly merge the two together. This may not be realistic if the images are from two completely different locations, but you can also repair a panorama where the separate images are not lined up perfectly or not aligned at all, for that matter.
How the removal of unwanted objects performs depends mostly on the selection you make. With Generative Fill, you need to make a wide selection around the subject you want to remove. This is the big difference compared to the Content Aware Tool, which needs a tight selection for it to work properly.
Although I was reluctant at first, I have become quite excited about the possibilities. Now, we must wait until it becomes even better before you can embed it in the normal high-resolution photo editing workflow.
Nando Harmsen is a Dutch photographer that is specialized in wedding and landscape photography. With his roots in the analog photo age he gained an extensive knowledge about photography techniques and equipment, and shares this through his personal blog and many workshops.
That's fine as long as everybody using it is aware that this changes the image from being a "photo" to "photorealistic art".
I'm not saying that is a bad thing, but rather that it is a good idea to use different terms for images that were produced by different methods.
An image made by light that fell through a lens on film or a sensor, I'd call a "photo".
An image made by AI from a prompt or by generative fill from a smaller image, I'd call "photorealistic art".
We don't call photorealistic paintings a "photo", so why should we call AI generated images a "photo"?
.
PS: I don't want this differentiation to call one better than the other, but for the same reason you don't call a table a chair. Different things should have different names, otherwise it's hard to talk about them.
You're missing the main argument. As these features become incrementally better and continually brushed off with statements like yours, "Generative Fill is an automated process of things we have been doing by hand for the last few decades." Well, those things done by hand were of value because of the determination, dedication, and time someone invested to build those hand skills or even travel to remote locations for the well-planned shot. Those hand skills and effort were the differentiators between a pro/enthusiast and Joe Blow with a cellphone using filters. Now usher in AI, and voila! Everyone can make (or chat) amazing images. I know the counter argument is the creativity but when spectacular images are created with words or with a touch of a button, now the lazy can excel. To quote the great movie 'The Incredibles', "When everyone's special, then no one is."
I understand this point very well. But this feature is just another tool. When performed in the proper way, with care, it helps you perform more complex tasks in a less time consuming manner. When performed without care, this will be visible in the results. In the end, nothing changes.
I welcome this kind of tools for my workflow because it gets the job done in less time. In the end, the end result counts. Not the way it is done. The consumer doesn't care.
But I want to stress out, also this tool need to be wielded with the proper amount of care and attention.
We're on the line between Point A and Point
where Point B is rapidly approaching. Point B is obviously where earned skills are no longer required. Unless we start voicing our concerns and demands for ethical considerations with Adobe and the like, our skills will soon be nullified. Presently, tech industries move forward with automation technologies because they can, without ethical constraints. Automous 16-wheelers--sure! Poof! There goes the trucking industry. Autonomous ships, autnomous food delivery, etc. Now, there are those that argue change has always taken place, yes, but not at this breakneck speed. Technological evolution is accelerating exponentially and, unabated, we're just along for the ride.
With all due respect, I don't agree. Skills will always be necessary. But perhaps these skills will shift to creating high quality computer generated content (I refuse to call it AI, since no artificial intelligence is used here).
This is similar to the beginning of Photoshop when the same discussion started.
But we'll see what will happen in the years to come. One thing is for sure, this is here to stay. If we like it or not.
I thank you for your interesting and valuable comments on this.