Some see photoshop as the holy grail but there is better software and plug-ins out there for certain tasks, this might also be one of them. The software might improve over time as well. Having tested the software for a variety of uses I'm inclined to say that some may be and some may not be - your misrepresentation of their advertising notwithstanding. It seems the concept of 'better' is as flexible and ill defined as it ever was. The photoshop image actually has MORE detail even AIG claims they 'create detail from gigabillions of other comparable photos". They are better processed but they are not "better". Please look again, their images are not better in any way. Now if you expand this to adding a plausible new sky and correctly changing of the image lighting to something entirely different, then I might be a bit more concerned for some of my paying work (but maybe not for a few years yet) There is distinct 'new detail' in the second shot that the software has generated - now, personally I'm OK with this since I'm trying to create a print that I like the look of.ĭo I really care if this was generated for me by billions of calculations - if i'm honest, then not the slightest - YMMV I'd note that these are tiny parts of the full image and would be very fine detail on a 36" x 24" print. It's the trees on the skyline and snow feature at the left that particularly impressed me. This is not part of the X is better than Y part of this thread I've included the original image simply viewed at 600% so you can see the pixels that the software had as an input (if you view at 100% here). The best example for 'plausible new detail' I've found was one I posted on the printing forum (since making huge prints is why I'd most likely use AI GP)
The idea that you can use AI to create detail is suspicious.
0 kommentar(er)
