I completely agree with you. AI can be a valuable tool for certain tasks, but it should never replace the creativity and personal touch that artists bring to their work.
The feeling I get when I do something by myself is much better than the One Click solution, even if it's not as good, because I enjoy the creating process and the end result has some personality.
The main issue is artists are experience a massive drop in orders. Mine have dropped by 25% in the last six months. Even though I enjoy the process of creating, that's my job and I need to get paid for that. AI users (I don't want to call them "artists", because you don't call "chef" someone who slaps some frozen meal into a microwave oven) are saturating the market with soulless, unexpensive AI junk, and they don't do that for the sake of art, they take money.
Absolutely agreed... I'm an artist myself and it really is very hard for us to see these things happening around... hate to say it but it shouldn't be going like this... we want the previous era back... where creativity was more precious than words
You’re absolutely right about this. The problem is that most people won’t make the difference between Artwork that took skills developed for a lifetime and a beautiful pictures coming from machines! I have been working as an illustrator for … years and I have congratulated some guys for their skills! I didn’t see they were using AI (I wasn’t aware of how advanced they had become!!😅😅). This is bad, Art is vital to society; I hope people won’t get used to aesthetical Art without sense, or Heart ♥️
An Urdu Writer Mumtaz Mufti said: "On reaching the destination, everything becomes meaningless. Because life is the name of the quest, life is the name of moving. The path is the destination". So for an artist, the path is everything, his struggle, hard work, and patience toward the art. If it can come with a click, then it's no worth it.
I thing this discussion is as old as art itself, Where is the border of Art and where is the boarder to an artist. In Germany we have a nice saying "Ist das Kunst oder kann das weg?" Is a Photograph an Artist when he just pressing a button on the Camera? I would say it depends how much he was thinking about the right perspective, light, composing ... Same is with AI Art you also have to think about how to describe and when you look to features like inpainting, train the AI to get consistant charactersor or functions like the controlnet from stable diffusion where you really can define the composing, control colours posings of persons use depth masks, ... I would say yes it can be seen as art and AI-Artist And sure you can get faster really good results but is not the idea of the Artist and the endresult the value for measure and not how long it was taking. And at the end when you have a customer that has to pay for your art, he is not interested in your skills and what you had a effort to create it, he is interested how much on point you reached the customers whish and of course how much he has to pay for it. And for sure now more hobyists will come and playing around, me eather, i am starting right now a wallprint business, but this gives me the chance to create unic art for normal persons, not only for rich persons, for a fair price, and i thing this is something good.
I think it's a good and important discussion. Thankfully AI still have some disadvantages. One of them is that legally it's already been established that in order to get copyright, it has to have been made by a human. Hopefully that won't change, as it helps the real artists. And i think AI can be beneficial as a tool to artists. Things like extending images, removing certain objects and such. I've sometimes come across some pics that i wanted to use in photo manipulation, but the photographer had cropped the images in ways that would require a lot of work to be able to use them better. Also the tool can be useful for brainstorming ideas And i agree with you. The process of making the art yourself and letting the idea develop as you work on it, is something AI can't replace. There's a lot more joy in the final result of what you made, instead of something a computer made with a string of text
I basically only use the Ai tools available in Photoshop to help with my work flow, but you still need to know how to use PS to fix all the errors. It is never a one click solution imho, but i don't hate it because i have used PS since 2001, so have seen things i never thought possible. I remember when we told people there was no way to fix blurred images, but now see what Remini and other ai photo enhancers can do, it is firghtening, but also exciting. To me, aslong as you are not claiming to be an artists by doing 1 click apps or prompts, then i really have no issues with people using it in general along with all the other tools available in PS
You can still be an artist by specifying as many details about what image you have in mind when preparing a prompt, IMO. The image uniqueness should come from the “what if” nature of your descriptions. Further refinements add to the artistry. AI should not be piecemeal fee based. We already have too many subscription fees - we pay via viewing ads. Adobe would be killing the goose that laid golden eggs by “metering” AI services. AI is still developing and these issues will, in time, be resolved in a competitive market.
Many years ago, a similar debate happened between stock photographers vs other photographers. Until this day, stock photography has been vilified and considered as invalid as now people try to invalidate the work made by people using AI generative tools. The most paradoxical part is that somebody can exhibit a rock, get paid millions for that rock (a natural rock) and still be considered an artist (Google "Levitated Mass" by Michael Heizer). I still have to see how many real contracts current artists will lose due to the new AI tools.
We don’t all use Photoshop for paying clients, but if they want to charge based on credits with the option to turn AI off as an option I would be fine with that
We're asking the wrong question when we ask should we pay to for AI. We're not paying for AI, we're paying to use their servers and software and if we don't pay for that they can't make a living and/or improve. Many people see AI as either wonderful or terrifying but I don't, I see it as just a tool to add to my workflow. I've never used it to create something as a stand alone artwork because it takes too long to make what I want clean enough for me to use without extensive clean up on my part, so I'd rather just create it myself. Believe me, when you see a pristine and amazing AI pic, most of the time it took hours to get. I find it most useful for styles I'm not good at. I can create something to edit to get what I want.
I think that some people will try to take shortcuts and put off AI artwork as their own. In the end they will eventually be found out because a client will want changes that, as you said, the AI cannot do. I think this is a great tool for things like generator fill from expanding areas and removing objects, etc. Even for generating ideas for projects. But then going and doing it completely on your own.
Hvala Nemanja za video. Baš sam napravio svoj prvi short u DaVInciju i, uz fotografiju i PS mogu puno naučit i o video editingu. Zamijetio sam na 2:40 kako si stišao zvuk kad si fejlao "outsourcing".
I think we should pay, but how much? I think that the process that an artist goes through to create a piece of artwork, and the process the AI goes through to do just that, are incredibly different from one another. On one hand you have someone drawing, on the other one you have computing. I don't see it much different than what google does, but instead of answering research questions, provides different type of data (elaborated differently how much you want, but still the basic concept remains). Also there is the fact that an artist would take payment for a job because they most likely live in a society where things cost money, and the price they charge depends on place, time and other economic and market circumstances. an AI, instead, is completely out of this system. Those, and many more considerations could be made, but of course I completely agree with the fact that someone shouldn't credit themselves as an artist, if they didn't make the piece of artwork themselves.
I have far greater respect for guys like 'Bipu Art', 'BeingNandish', 'TT-Art', 'Christian Young' and 'Patrick Hines' who produce outstanding digital art using only Microsoft Paint than I do for anyone who produces ultra-symmetrical, inexpensive AI-generated text prompt 'artworks'.
It is very fun to put in words and then get an image back so quickly, I think AI could really inspire artists who take the time to create an amazing piece of art of there own. The problem is, it is essentially replacing human artists for a machine to create instead. Interestingly on the positive side, what if AI is inspiring more people to want to learn how to create there own art work. What if AI actually creates more human artists and makes them want to learn things like 3d and photography, photo editing etc.
Love your video and you are right ! For Adobe and other AI we are the end client . With AI becoming more main stream people will want to pay less for creative services because they know it is automation . We just need to learn and adapt to the new trend because it is here to stay and grow. There will be a lot of keyboard artist coming up in the next future ! Keep up the good videos, your work it's amazing !
Hi Nemanja, think that you should use it just as an extra tool in your arsenal for what you do, fact you can't stop it happening now, none of us can. Turn it into an asset . I love it but think PS shouldn't charge extra as it's still not up to standard in my view, if they decide to ask extra it should be in the monthly charge a small amount this way they'll keep there customer base and increase there income. Otherwise I believe they'll loose money over all......Colin Devon UK.
I would define a 'Pro' artist as someone who has the skills to deliver what a client wants- as opposed to what they or even their AI wants. And at present this is a problem because many clients can be very precise in their expectations. both in terms of the first version of a work and any subsequent alterations to that first pass. It's rare for a client to simply accept the first iteration of a piece- almost always changes are asked for, and these changes can often be quite subtle. At present AI does not really do subtle changes or even very precise outcomes- it's more a case of taking what you get. And even if you have the skills to manipulate the AI's output on a pixel level there is a law of diminishing returns in play whereby the amount of time and effort required to change the AI's work can exceed the time and effort it might take to redo the work from the beginning. This may all change of course as AI's become more responsive to their users needs, but at this point I don't think using an AI will make you a Professional artist.
In the United States, a judge declared that the images generated by A.I. cannot be copyrighted unless they are heavily modified. I think that it will save some jobs for artists, but not all jobs, only the jobs where it's important to copyright the images. In my case, I own a business where it's not important, so A.I. took the job of the third-world artists I used to hire.
Good question. In my opinion AI doesn't have any own experiences, it didn't need to learn, it just transforms and merges other people's images. It's a programmed software. So if I pay for an artwork made by AI I do it for its programmers' time, knowledge and experiences with programming not for the picture it made. So if I ask you to make an artwork for me, I need to pay to your teachers (mentors, tutorial makers who you learned from). It would be nonsense. I think a human being and a software cannot be compared. If AI were a software with self-awareness and own personality and it made its own pictures the situation would be exactly that you spoke about. Currently they are just "simple" software making automatically what you ask from them using other people's pictures. Maybe using your pictures. Who do I need to pay for a picture if it's made by AI but AI only used your pictures? Interesting situation. 😊
You are just the absolute cutest and I absolutely love your fumbling over words/phrases. I’m commenting on this after watching the first 30 seconds because I just had to tell you how adorable and attractive you are. 😊
using Ai images isn't the same at using stock photos (free or paid) and combine them in Photoshop? if I use Ai to render some characters and some background and some stuff that I need in my photomanipulation process...isn't the same at using stock photos? what do you think?
You are always a inspiration to me sir ... Yes what you are telling its all crt .... And yeh im not a good artist but still im learning and making me better than yesterday.. and what im creating is make me happy even though its not looking good
In my opinion, we are, well, our customs have evolved and people, especially the young, want quick results, obviously the hand of an artist is much better, in a physical sense, the fun of creating a new project, whether alternating photoshop, blender, Catia even Word, to have everything at hand, what AI does is hurt artists, because the client may prefer an AI without having to look for the artist, because society is also... Distancing social relationships from human contact, before there were thousands of painters, after photography, there were fewer left, now a hand-painted painting, be it of a port, a meadow or someone else, costs time and money, photography hurts the painter, the same as AI harms the artist, but there are still people who paint pictures...
i think next step is AI will be able to create 3D model (really great quality and accuracy) from 2D image, so u just generate with AI 2D image, convert to 3D model with texture and from weeks of work is couple hours with edit details of this model and texture, setting scene etc. Im little bit demotivated when i try to learn PS and Blender for long time.. :D
There will be always people who will abuse this things and make profit on it, nothing you can do about it. From the other side I don't think artist era is finished. AI is just another tool that you can use in your advantage. Even if it just remove objects from the background in one click its already a big time saver for most artists and we all know that time is money. Less time you spend on one project the more projects you can do, but where the new era gonna lead us cant be predictable for now. Also don't forget AI = lots of server power, electricity bills, companies that need to pay all this bills and people behind it. This cant be free... need to pay for everything.
08:34 😄 Since AI generated art uses information from existing images, art pieces, styles etc, most of which is without original artists' consent, so without paying them, I think it should be free. Either way, I am not using AI art.
Even if one day AI becomes insanely good the world will still need artists, an artist will have a way easier time creating exactly what they are picturing, while others will settle for the generated prompt and not figure out how to switch it up exactly. I might be wrong in the end but the taking credit part has been happening since forever its not an AI problem but a human one.
"AI will make us clients, not artists." That's well said. I think there shouldn't be the term "AI artist". And I am really confused right now about the future of this AI.
I think Adobe should keep the current version without AI at its current price, or even lower. And also provide a more expensive version with AI. Which is what they'll never do, of course! :)) They will probably keep only the AI version an triple the price.
AI engines do not create things from scratch - they are 'based on' other artists' work on the internet that should be compensated. And so AI should not be free either.
This is what Adobe are supposed to be doing with the Ai feature. As they said it draws from all Adobe Stock photos and anyone with a CC account and has uploaded Stock images, will get a kickback when their images are used by the Ai software. They said it can log details of any image used in the process, so i think that is a good system. Hopefully this could be implemented into a lot of Stock websites, so we can get a small % in royalties if any of our stock images are used, not just based off of random tips from people who downloaded our image from free places like Unsplash etc
"Nothing worth doing is ever easy" , AI art is easy. It's not worth doing. What's scary with AI, especially midjourney is that it's too good. Nothing in life is ever easy and really good. There's always some catch, like it's expensive or unhealthy. But with midjourney it's like there is no catch. You just type word and get incredible looking digital art... It really feels unnatural. Like it just shouldn't exist. Your client analogy is perfect. Hundreds of thousands of people are training an artist to be better and better and better at what? at not even needing them anymore. All of these AI tools will replace all freelance artists and corporations will thrive. Real art will remain as it always has-in museums and galleries, but freelance art, video, music, cover, design, marketing, adds... I think it most of it will be replaced with AI...
First my feeling is PS should have left this to midjourney and alike and not included in the program , having seen someone on youtube ( no names ) , use Ai for at least 50% of their image and then call it editing and would be happy to post it as their image is beyond me , 50% of the image is mine that's ok , NO . I stand with the artists , not the type any word noncreators .
Think God i'm not the only one who hate AI I call the Ai my a$$ Prefer the tradional way plus i use the Cs6 version of photoshop just because i hate Ai and i don't want to see it not now not ever.
If they want to pay, or should they be obligated to pay for our work…Still our work doesnt sell aswell because the “client” doesnt need us anymore… ish
Nemanja, I am disappointed that you leave out those of us who use Photoshop for the sheer fun and enjoyment of it as a hobby. If I am not monetizing my art, why should I pay more to Adobe once Firefly will be a feature in Photoshop? I fear that digital artists who create for pleasure will be penalized.
As I said in a video, if you want someone or something else to make an art for you, instead of you, it's ok to pay for it. I have nothing against it. Also I have nothing to do with Adobe and their decision to charge for AI services. It's up to them. Why do you think that you will be penalized?
@@NemanjaSekulic Penalized in the sense that I am not making money but using the features and enhancements for fun and entertainment, so paying more would be a burden.
AI is another tool to use to deliver solutions. I am not a fan of the idea that you would pay per usage like many AI tools are currently doing. We dont pay for any other tool within Photoshop on a per usage basis and AI should be no different. Its like the old days with long distance phone service. I personally wont pay on a per usage basis. Should we pay a bit more for Photoshop because of the AI tool? Yes, but nothing crazy.
AI is only a tool for me and For all persons in different fields. And absolutely normal person can get some help of it or maybe for fun. But as a business it will be nothing more than a tool. And all these websites or apps will not be free in future.
There is no way AI will ever be free. One way or the other you will pay for it. People forget that these companies also have bills and employees to pay.
