Remix clone Hacker News

Photoshop is a tool designed for the 1% of people who want that level of control for their vision. Adobe has several other tools for other markets.

Even the latest model from this week, which is undeniably impressive, can’t get close to the level of control that photoshop gives me. It often edits parts of the image I haven’t asked it to touch among other issues. I use photoshop as a former photojournalist, and AI manipulated images are of no use to me. My photos are documentary. They represent a slice of reality. I know that AI can create a realistic simulacrum of that, but I’m not interested.

This is like saying we won’t need text editors in the future. That’s silly, there are some things that we won’t need text editors for, but the ability of ai to generate and edit text files doesn’t mean that we won’t ever need to edit them manually.

▲

echelon 16 hours ago | parent [-]

This rhymes with still developing your own film.

I'm really eager to see how this pans out in a decade.

	▲	dghlsakjg 5 hours ago \| parent [-]
		> This rhymes with still developing your own film. Well, guilty, I actually do occasionally develop my own film. Film photography is actually expanding as an industry right now. We are well past the point where digital photography can do everything a film camera can do, and in most cases it can do it far better (very minor exceptions like large format photography still exist, where you can argue that film still has the edge). I think that whether you embrace AI photo editing or not has more to do with the purpose of your photos. If you are trying to create marketing collateral for a valentines day ad campaign, AI is probably going to be the best tool. If you are trying to document reality, even for aesthetic purposes, AI isn't great. When I make a portrait of my wife, I don't need AI to reinterpret her face for me.