Skip to main content
E
erikc42927044
Participating Frequently
August 8, 2025
Answered

THE REALLY BIG PROBLEM WITH FIREFLY - the elephant in the room everyone acknowledges is???

  • August 8, 2025
  • 1 reply
  • 838 views

I find Adobe Firefly really helpful; Adobe generative AI in terms of the options it gives me in realms I need not delineate here for this readership, features I really wouldn't want to live without. YET, YET???

 

There is one glaringly obvious fault with both Firefly and Adobe Generative AI which I find, frankly - amazing to think that Adobe is being so stupid - as well as throwing away an incredible potential source of revenue - by not addressing the issue.

 

Specifically. WHAT is so hard about making it so that if we generate something we want as a final version of something? Why can't you offer us the option to have it generated at a resolution equal to what we started with or what we say we desire? IF we are willing to pay for the pleasure, the service coin of the realm, filthy lucre - pieces of silver????

Unfortunately, Adobe - by virtue of this failing - has forced me to seek others for AI art generations because it is just too much trouble to have to jerry rig images all the time because they look like crap (unless in teensy weensy sizes on a 72 dpi monitor).

Hopefully, maybe someday, one fine day in the middle of the night or the morning after? 

Adobe will wake up - from their sleeping beauty sleep - and smell the reality roses and address this issue that only someone who doesn't know anything about anything related to images - doesn't know is a huge drawback and pain in the a.....z.

 

With all due respect to Adobe and their myriad - truly wonderful products but REALLY?????

Correct answer Kevin Stohlmeyer

@erikc42927044 giving some context as to why Adobe has limits on the generation size (and honestly ALL AI models have size limits) - The current limit for Firefly is 2000 px x 2000 px. My guess is the limits are in place to prevent server overloads with so many subscribers and usage requests. Even now we still see some intermittent outages with the service with the addition of video, audio, translation, etc. 

 

If Adobe were to remove the limits (which they have increased since launch), I would expect Adobe to charge more for "premium" or a sliding credit charge based on size. We see this already with Enterprise accounts and translating video - the longer the video the more credits are deducted. 

 

If your images are looking like "crap" - check the size first. If it exceeds 2000 px, then it will essentially resample giving you a lower quality output. 

 

Hope this helps give some context as to why the limits are in place. Hopefully Adobe will continue to increase the limits as the service and ecosystem improves. 

 

1 reply

Kevin Stohlmeyer
Community Expert
Kevin StohlmeyerCommunity ExpertCorrect answer
Community Expert
August 8, 2025

@erikc42927044 giving some context as to why Adobe has limits on the generation size (and honestly ALL AI models have size limits) - The current limit for Firefly is 2000 px x 2000 px. My guess is the limits are in place to prevent server overloads with so many subscribers and usage requests. Even now we still see some intermittent outages with the service with the addition of video, audio, translation, etc. 

 

If Adobe were to remove the limits (which they have increased since launch), I would expect Adobe to charge more for "premium" or a sliding credit charge based on size. We see this already with Enterprise accounts and translating video - the longer the video the more credits are deducted. 

 

If your images are looking like "crap" - check the size first. If it exceeds 2000 px, then it will essentially resample giving you a lower quality output. 

 

Hope this helps give some context as to why the limits are in place. Hopefully Adobe will continue to increase the limits as the service and ecosystem improves. 

 

E
erikc42927044Author
Participating Frequently
August 8, 2025

Thank you, Kevin, for your well-thought-out response. I agree with all of your points as to why it may well be prohibitive for Adobe to offer higher basic resolutions - when we are in the process of "playing around" and trying to find the version of something we want. It would be a total waste in all respects to expend the resources needed to supply higher resolution images.

 

However, my point was that it makes no sense to me why they can't develop of separate venue that - didn't necessarily add to the cost of the basic subscription, but that was a separate service that allowed us to order finalized, customized versions that would then seamlessly - with no image degradation - meld into our desired end composition. That way? They make money - we get the quality we need without having to waste time doing endless workarounds, their lack of ability to supply what I really need.

 

But, fortunately, I have found a solution and basically - don't need to care anymore. I just used Microsoft's Bing AI image generation engine that uses DALLE as it's source of images. It offers several variations of your image desired by your text prompt - then if you are happy it costs you one credit to upscale it, which provides you with a 19.2 MB PNG that I then sized at 22 x 26 inches, 300 DPI in Adobe 1998, and it was gorgeous and that was before I just ran it through Topaz Photo AI to remove any noise it had and to sharpen it - now?

 

Frankly, Kevin, as I just told my business partner - if I had been working for Adobe? I would have been screaming and yelling at them to high heaven about this issue for ages - and when they didn't listen - which apparently they are inclined to do since everyone on the internet who is any good has been complaining about this?  I would have quit. 

I told, my young partner, that it is a terrible mistake to work for people who are incompetent, too stupid to listen and intractable to change; apparently are rigid or too big to move in a quick and nimble fashion to respond to market trends - a common, oft fatal malady large monolithic corporations fall prey to as we know.

So Adobe has missed the boat and won't be getting any of that money I was before, but am not now, willing to fork over. 

 

Here's the article that led me to using Bing - and quality AI image generation heaven! LOL


https://mspoweruser.com/ai-art-generator-high-resolution/


I know I sound terribly critical - but this is a self-inflicted wound by Adobe on itself.

 

    Terms & ConditionsAccessibility statement
    Using the community Terms of use Privacy Cookie preferences Do not sell or share my personal information ad choicesAdChoices