I bought the Affinity Suite which has been great for me. Sadly they don't have a Linux version, which is what I'm moving to. Krita covers some other of Photoshop's features as well. And people who say Gimp is a Photoshop alternative are crazy. Gimp uses destructive editing which is clown level in image editing and makes it completely useless imo. But supposedly non-destructive editing is coming.
It is destructive in what sense? I've been using gimp to do various edits non professionally for many years and I am feeling comfortable with many advanced things, but now I am curious about maybe trying Krita or something.
I thought using layers and so on in gimp was also considered non destructive... Maybe I am missing out on something.
I have also used photoshop in like 20 years ago, can't remember much.
Destructive in that many edits are lossy. Change the transform of an object, then go do a bunch of other edits, and then go back and edit that same transform again. What you'll be editing now is the edited image, not the original one (as in Photoshop), so there's massive data loss and it looks absolute crap. If you want to edit with the original image as origin you have to undo all edits back to before you edited the transform the first time.
Non-destructive editing should be coming in the future, and they might have implemented some non-destructive things since I last used it.
Layers aren't edits, they're layers. Edits you make to layers or parts of layers. That image whose transform was being edited in my previous example would be on its own layer.
Also, it's been a while since I used Gimp so I'm going off of very vague memories that I have tried to erase with copious amounts of alcohol.
On second thought, maybe it's the way I work with layers as well. I tend to keep duplicates of the base image as layers to work with effects and mask them so that I have flexibility with applying them and editing them as needed. Perhaps the benefit of non-desteuctive editing is the same thing as I end up with, but more automated...?
So wait, if you're editing the original image, wouldn't the result just be wrong? I'm genuinely confused. You edit something, you want to change that, you should be changing what to you edited it to, right? Isn't that the only thing that makes any sense, because if you were editing what you had before, the change you make wouldn't be right in the context of the new edit?
And if you want to keep something, this is why we have layers. Which Gimp has and just works. That's the real way to do "non-destructive editing".
Maybe just not understanding how things work in PS because I've never used it extensively, but common sense tells me that if you edit something, you want it to look like that and any further edits would be on what you edited it to, not some unknown echo of the past that would interfere with how the image currently looks, which is what you should be editing, right?
You're right, but you're missing a key point. Every edit changes the way the image looks. With destructive editing those changes are "baked" into the object you're changing, and that is data loss. If you want to make a change to that edit you want it to still have the information from the original image so it can be included and changed into the new result you want. Destructive editing doesn't allow for that. It's like if you bend a metal wire, you just crumple it up, and then you want to straighten it again - you won't be able to get it perfectly straight. Non destructive editing does allow for that because it still has the original information, it just doesn't display it in its original form, it displays it with the edit you've made to it, and the edit is "live" so you can change it. It has nothing to do with layers per se, but using layers can be a way to do certain edits in a non destructive way.
If you don't grasp the difference just open Gimp and do the transform test. Paste an image into a new layer, change the transform and squish it to the extreme (non uniformly), make it a few pixels wide only. Apply the transform. Change the transform again and pull the image out to its original aspect ratio. You'll have a blurry image because of all the data that was lost in the first edit. Non destructive editing has been like the most requested feature for Gimp for the past forever for a reason.
Sufficiently large orgs probably will be eligible for exemptions under the theory that they are agreeing ahead of time.
But also? The Adobe suite are just leagues better than anything else in that space. Smaller companies with smaller contracts can get away with, frankly, lesser software. But at scale? You need stuff like the "Oh shit, we should stop calling it AI" plugins. And workflows matter a lot when the vast majority of your applicant pool have been using Adobe software for literally decades.
A decent number of the tech youtubers have done "We tried to not use Premier for one week" style videos. And they usually end up coming out with "I guess we could maybe make it work but it just isn't worth it"
Much like with "this is the year of gaming for linux", it is going to need massive amounts of grass roots effort to actually focus on UI/UX over "We don't need that because we are smarter" bullshit. And, eventually, it will be good enough for influencers/taste-makers to give it a chance.
Expect a LOT more companies to do stuff like this. Because "deep fake" porn is a plague and nobody (reputable) wants their software to be the go to for violating people.
Yes. Photoshop is not currently equal to deepfake porn. It is a few popular plugins away from being it though. Hence getting out ahead of things with content policies.
And... NSFW digital art is not as good money as you think it is. At least, not at the corporate/software level.
But also... that is kind of the point. Adobe and basically every company that isn't a porn company doesn't care about the revenue from porn. And the companies that DO care about the revenue are constantly fighting piracy.
There are some patreon-like artists who make bank for getting their Source Film Maker on. But they are a handful of licenses, at best.
That's what I was thinking. Apart from the porn locked up in the Disney vault, big companies aren't in the business of making porn. And the companies that do aren't going to be interested in deep fakes. The people who are using Photoshop to create porn are small fries to Adobe. Deep fake porn has been around as long as photo manipulation has, and Adobe hasn't cared before.
Bearing that in mind, I don't think this policy has anything to do with AI deep fakes or porn. I think it's more likely to be some new revenue source, like farming data for LLM training or something. They could go the Tumblr route and use AI to censor content, but considering Tumblr couldn't tell the difference between the Sahara Desert and boobs, I think that's one fuck up with a major company away from being litigation hell. The only reason that I think would make sense for Adobe to do this because of deep fakes is if they believe that governments are going to start holding them liable for the content people make with their products.
I know AI is the big bogeyman right now (and it is especially pertinent to Adobe because the stuff that makes Photoshop and Premier and the like so good are the "AI" tools they have had... for the better part of a decade), but I think there is almost a zero chance that is a factor in this*
Because... the big companies care about that. If using Illustrator means that all of their content is being used to train models for their competitors? You can bet that MASSIVE amounts of money would be pumped into Inkscape and the like overnight. Almost as much money as they pump into the lawyers who will own Adobe by the end of the month. Same with Premier and Photoshop and all the other ones.
I DO expect Adobe to release something akin to a RAG based tool so that Company A can "save money" by feeding in all of their personal IP as training data to make a semi-personalized model. But there is zero chance that adobe is going ot risk aggregating that themselves.
*: Unless the secret is that Adobe wants to develop a service to detect the probability that art was used in the training of a model or even to implement some form of DRM to identify stolen art. Similar to what those god awful NFT models failed to do.
Artists for furry porn aren't generally paying for 100+ enterprise licenses. But then, people doing more questionable stuff probably aren't paying at all so it still doesn't make sense.
That's what I was thinking. Deep fakes have existed since photo manipulation was invented, and Adobe hasn't cared one iota about it before. The only reason I can see for them to care now is if they think they can get in legal trouble for what people create with their products.
nichegamer.com
Newest