Amazon Adobe Black Friday sale

Elines

Elines

Well-Known Member
Registered
 
Ah yes. Creative Cloud. How to give Adobe the right to give away your images to the world for them to use in their AI cheated images
 
Stop taking silly ,Joanna, there are many people on this forum that use creative cloud, your comment is opinionated and rude to those users
 
You surprise me. Are you saying that in your view it is ok to claim an AI generated image is your own. I read Joannas' comments as refering to those folk who use AI to generate an image are cheating if they are not up front about it. We all know and accept that photo editing software uses AI to do some of the stuff we need to do to perfect a photo. But I certainly feel that using AI to create an image and then claim it is your photo, is cheating.
 
Helen, am not saying anything other than Chris, has posted to show were you can get a good deal for creative cloud, PS and Lightroom, so why does Joanna pop out of the woodwork nearly all the time and give a negative comment to a product that’s used world wide by millions of people, that’s the point I was making, no one is interested in her biased comments about Adobe products, so why make them, really annoying and needs to stop.
 
Martin Henson said:
your comment is opinionated and rude to those users
Click to expand...

My comment might have expressed an opinion but it was in no way derogatory to other users. My beef is with Adobe for using users' images from their cloud platform as food for their AI engine. Yes, folks consent to them doing this but, it is a consent under duress because, without your consent, you don't get to fully use their software.

I have no problem with Photoshop as it used to be, it is an excellent product. It is their business model that gives me the heebie-jeebies. Not having the ability to purchase it outright and having to "phone home" are my main complaints. Their switch to the subscription model was the only reason why I dropped it.

This whole generative AI stuff is ripping the heart out of photography and not just in the creating of images from words. I could not believe my ears when someone in our club photo started enthusing about using an AI "judging" engine to analyse photos, supposedly with the intent of learning how to "improve" their images.

You are obviously firmly wedded to Adobe products, as is your right and privilege, to the extent that if anyone else (like me) espouses other software, it seems they are admonished for straying from the "one true path". Whenever I talk about DxO, it is with a dread that I will be chastised - this should not be the case for any user of any other software.

Please, you have your opinions, I have mine, others will have their own. Let's concentrate on making great pictures, no matter what the tools we use.
 
Joanna Carter said:
Ah yes. Creative Cloud. How to give Adobe the right to give away your images to the world for them to use in their AI cheated images
Click to expand...
We all to some extent benefit from computer learning (that's what AI is a rebrand of). Whether it's the chemicals you use for developing film, the lenses developed by computer or the testing of complex s/w (where ever you get it from). You have the option to embrace change or grumble finding fault and take offence where ever you can find it.

I assume you wouldn't object to AI helping to diagnose a medical condition or a new treatment because it had learnt from previous research ?

Please don't bash somebody else trying to be helpful, pass on it if you're not interested
 
ian_s said:
I assume you wouldn't object to AI helping to diagnose a medical condition or a new treatment because it had learnt from previous research ?
Click to expand...

Of course not. But what Adobe and other similar companies are doing is using other folks images, or parts thereof, to creative derivative works without the original author's consent. You are missing the point. What Adobe is doing is not about the common good, it is about facilitating the creation of images that are purely derived from descriptions and constructed from other artist's copyrighted work. This is commonly called theft.

ian_s said:
"Powered by AI machine learning, DeepPRIME delivers RAW photo noise reduction and demosaicing better than any other app"
Click to expand...

Indeed. But DeepPRIME isn't taking an original work and creating derived works without consent. Noise reduction is a horrendously complex business and the type of AI the DxO uses is about providing a better tool that is working at the pixel level to correct faults. It is not generative AI, which is what Adobe is using to create derived works that are barely distinguishable from original works.

How would you react if I were to steal your photo archives and sell them for profit under my own name?
 
Joanna Carter said:
My beef is with Adobe for using users' images from their cloud platform as food for their AI engine. Yes, folks consent to them doing this but, it is a consent under duress because, without your consent, you don't get to fully use their software.
Click to expand...
you can opt out of allowing Adobe to use your images for training their AI models by adjusting your privacy settings in your Adobe account, specifically in the "Content Analysis" section, which allows you to toggle whether Adobe can analyze your content for machine learning purposes

And by opting out does not limit any option within Photoshop
 
Let's avoid turning this platform into a shouting match like Twitter. Elines is likely the most frequent poster here, and he consistently tries to help and support other members. Joanna, while I respect your opinion, I encourage you to consider how you would express your thoughts in a face-to-face conversation. Your comment came across as aggressive. Additionally, I believe that if you conduct some in-depth research on how AI generative imaging works, it will strengthen your argument, despite it being unsolicited.
 
I quite like it here, I don't know the history of members interactions but from a newish members perspective I always think people get a bit to sensitive regarding Joanna's posts, her post was a tiny bit sharp but that's what I find the problem with text based communication (with no facial or tonal cues), unless what is written is wrapped in cotton wool it's to easy to take offence.(I know, I do it myself all the time!)

Maybe Joanna could make her occasional sharper posts a bit less so and we could be a bit less sensitive then hopefully we can all be happy. There is a lot to like and learn on this forum and ganging up on others seems not in keeping with the general vibe....only my opinion, what do I know?....
 
I certainly agree on the verbal v non- verbal point

I used to help run a management development course and I always remember one particular exercise.

In summary:

  • one person stands out of sight of the others and asks them to draw a picture following the instructions from the instructor
  • BUT no questions, sounds etc of any kind

RESULT: very quick but very inaccurate drawings (= result of ineffective one-way communication)


REPEAT but with:
  • instructor visible at front of class and
  • people allowed to ask etc whatever they wanted

RESULT: lots of noise, good-natured abuse at instructor for not being clear/giving obviously vague instructions, much drawing in the air and seeking of clarification

Took longer but people understood better what was intended, and everyone gets accurate pictures ie message fully understood

LESSON RE ONE WAY COMMUNICATION

For the communicator:

When writing, or using other types of one-way communication, be very careful how you frame your words

For the receiver:

Don't assume that the way you understand the message is correct, give the sender the benefit of doubt as to any apparent tone until confirmed
 
Most of the above is pointing me in the direction back to traditional photography where there is little chance of any artificial intelligence getting their sticky tendrils on my photography. The outrageous idea that someone can take my work and adulterate it to suit their ideas fills me with utter loathing. Don't get me wrong I like using PS, but for me anyway it is getting 'too close for comfort' and almost like getting into the same bed with AI.

I have experimented in the past by closing off the internet connection every time I accessed PS with little affect over 2 weeks, if any so how long would this state exist so long as I paid my subs they would have no way of connecting to 'steal' my work. ( Plus on occasions forcing me to update my system to accommodate their 'upgrades' which I probably would not use anyway).
 
Last edited:
Joanna Carter said:
My comment might have expressed an opinion but it was in no way derogatory to other users. My beef is with Adobe for using users' images from their cloud platform as food for their AI engine. Yes, folks consent to them doing this but, it is a consent under duress because, without your consent, you don't get to fully use their software.

I have no problem with Photoshop as it used to be, it is an excellent product. It is their business model that gives me the heebie-jeebies. Not having the ability to purchase it outright and having to "phone home" are my main complaints. Their switch to the subscription model was the only reason why I dropped it.

This whole generative AI stuff is ripping the heart out of photography and not just in the creating of images from words. I could not believe my ears when someone in our club photo started enthusing about using an AI "judging" engine to analyse photos, supposedly with the intent of learning how to "improve" their images.

You are obviously firmly wedded to Adobe products, as is your right and privilege, to the extent that if anyone else (like me) espouses other software, it seems they are admonished for straying from the "one true path". Whenever I talk about DxO, it is with a dread that I will be chastised - this should not be the case for any user of any other software.

Please, you have your opinions, I have mine, others will have their own. Let's concentrate on making great pictures, no matter what the tools we use.
Click to expand...
Here here! I couldn't agree more. Of course, I don't know that much about photograph, analogue or digital, as I've only been doing it 75 odd years, but sure as hell we never had to put up with the corporate crap inflicted on us by Adobe, Corel and other US behemoths. Which is why I still run Quark Express for page production, and have turned to the Affinity (British) products including Photo, even though the latter is unstable, buggy, very frustrating to work with and with a lousy interface. But it does the job.
 
Joanna Carter said:
My comment might have expressed an opinion but it was in no way derogatory to other users. My beef is with Adobe for using users' images from their cloud platform as food for their AI engine. Yes, folks consent to them doing this but, it is a consent under duress because, without your consent, you don't get to fully use their software.

I have no problem with Photoshop as it used to be, it is an excellent product. It is their business model that gives me the heebie-jeebies. Not having the ability to purchase it outright and having to "phone home" are my main complaints. Their switch to the subscription model was the only reason why I dropped it.

This whole generative AI stuff is ripping the heart out of photography and not just in the creating of images from words. I could not believe my ears when someone in our club photo started enthusing about using an AI "judging" engine to analyse photos, supposedly with the intent of learning how to "improve" their images.

You are obviously firmly wedded to Adobe products, as is your right and privilege, to the extent that if anyone else (like me) espouses other software, it seems they are admonished for straying from the "one true path". Whenever I talk about DxO, it is with a dread that I will be chastised - this should not be the case for any user of any other software.

Please, you have your opinions, I have mine, others will have their own. Let's concentrate on making great pictures, no matter what the tools we use.
Click to expand...
Whoever it was who enthused about using AI when judging entries into a competition needs really to have a reality check and hang their heads in shame. There is no place in club level for AI to be used in competitions.

I have done a small number of judging in competitions when I lived in the south of England, and yes you can ruffle feathers if you are too harsh in your assessment and state it as you think. The trick is to use the English language with it's mass of adjectives and suggestions that mean the same but rarely give offence.

Do you think that AI could distinguish the difference between a digital print and another of the same subject which was printed on traditional colour paper using a darkroom? Now that would be interesting.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top