3 ms·
Is it actively worse, though? My impression is that all of the other, classical-based in-painting methods are still alive and well in Adobe products. And I thin
by thegeomaster 2y ago
Is it actively worse, though? My impression is that all of the other, classical-based in-painting methods are still alive and well in Adobe products. And I think their in-painting works well, when it does work. To me, this honestly sounds like an improvement, especially in a creative tool like Lightroom or Photoshop --- the artist has more options to achieve their vision; it's usually understood to be up to the artist to use the tools appropriately.
- ryandrake 2y agoI'm not an artist or an Adobe customer, but when I see products adding half-baked or defective features, it tarnishes their brand and would definitely make me re-consider trusting their product. Especially for professional use, and regardless of whether the rest of the product still works fine. It's a general indicator of carelessness and tolerance of quality problems.
- DrewADesign 2y agoUnfortunately, the Adobe ecosystem on a whole is like OS-level complex, and they're pretty much ignoring anything that isn't directly related to generative AI, and that stuff is only consistently good for the lowest-level use cases. Miles more useful than Comfy, etc. for most artists and designers, but not close for people that need to do more skillful work. The value of Adobe as an ecosystem was their constant upgrading and keeping up with the times, and now, if it's not some cockamamie generative AI feature, it's going nowhere. They're even worse with bug fixes than they were before.