Reply to thread

This is an ongoing debate in the creative community - how much room should we give AI in our creative work. To address your question more directly, Generative Fill/AI will work within the context of your image. BUT - it may add additional elements, that even though might be within the context of the image, were not present when the original photograph was taken. It may add objects and people that were not there before. And it might even add an out of context element which is why it will give you several choices in each round as you continue to generate changes until you pick one that is most appropriate to your own image. It may seem to create creative decisions when it primarily using algorithms.

Now the photographer/creative can manipulate when Generative Fill has created or even delete elements. Part of the new creative process that has been created. It's a tool that we might use in the same way we may use cloning or content aware fill. And consider the other tools in the PS toolbox and what the software other than AI is capable of. My own opinion is that if you restrict AI, then maybe you should restrict all post-processing and stick only with out-of-camera images.

As for myself, I resisted AI since I felt I was being somewhat unfaithful to the craft. But it's capabilities have greatly expanded what I can edit or even create. It's not perfect and often creates quite laughable results like the six fingered hand it once offered. Again, it's a tool that has to used with some intelligence and ethics.

What about your salon competitions? You may end up with 3 categories - straight-out-of-camera, post-processed, or AI generate/assisted images. Or judge the image by the end result as a creative act. What I think those who oppose the inclusion of AI is because they feel it's "deceptive" - yet, unless you're a portrait photographer, it's all deceptive in a creative way.