P: Generated images violate user guidelines

[Hematita]

So as you can see, it's a PG-13 relatively inoffensive image of a woman in a bunny outfit. The top worked fine, and I was able to complete the top ear, which is cool. When I tried to extend the bottom with generative fill, though, I got this warning. They're just a pair of legs wearing stockings, and I wanted to extend it.

It feels like a false flag - though I could be wrong? I find myself thinking it would do the same for women in swimsuits.

Figured I'd share here.

[Kevin Stohlmeyer]

That is direct from the Adobe site. Universal.

[Kevin Stohlmeyer]

@MontyWales either way click the link it will redirect to your country website and you can read for yourself to confirm.

[zvi_t]

If you find ads disruptive to your work focus, you have the option to pay $5 for every 100 credits once you reach your limit. Personally, I can't afford to do so, and I wouldn't choose to pay extra on top of a subscription. I'd rather continue seeing ads.

Adobe should follow the example of many other apps by giving users the choice to either purchase additional credits or view ads, similar to how YouTube offers Premium for an ad-free experience. This way, it would be a win-win-win situation, and everyone could be satisfied. If Adobe requires additional funds to compensate photographers for their images, that responsibility should not fall on the users. There are legal ways to train AI models without having to compensate photographers.

Adobe has the right to prioritize its own financial interests, just like most companies do. They aren't unique in that regard. Regarding the $9.99 plan, let's not idealize Adobe simply because we're on their forums. The primary pricing page displays the $19.99 Photoshop/Lightroom plan with 1TB of storage. If you're not familiar with where to look, you might not even realize there's a cheaper $9.99 plan with 20GB. Is this a transparent practice? No. Do many people end up paying $19.99, believing it's the best option? Yes. Is Adobe misleading these users by not prominently featuring the more affordable plan? Unfortunately, yes.

When integrating AI into your life, you often end up paying various fees like $20 for ChatGPT, $5 here, $10 there, and it all accumulates. While it's true that AI generation requires substantial computing resources, companies seem to prefer charging users instead of incorporating ads.

[Kevin Stohlmeyer]

@zvi_t not being an idealist at all but also don't care for disinformation.

The pricing structure is clearly posted and even has a convenient comparison page outlining the details of each plan before purchasing. Maybe you should refresh your view and take a look.

There is a link to compare plans on each purchase page - Creative Cloud, Photoshop, etc. that takes you to this helpful matrix to make the right decision. How do you consider this "misleading"?

https://www.adobe.com/creativecloud/photography/compare-plans.html

[zvi_t]

@Kevin Stohlmeyer 

There is nothing idealistic about you. I respect how you earned the community expert badge. I wish you were in charge at Adobe. 🙂

Speaking of Adobe, I understand there's a link to the $9.99 plan, but uncovering it isn't exactly straightforward. When folks are searching for Adobe's prices, they typically follow one of two basic methods:

1. They resort to a Google search for Adobe prices, which leads to https://www.adobe.com/creativecloud/plans.html.
2. They head to http://www.adobe.com and either click “Start free trial” or navigate through “Creativity & Design” to “View plans and pricing.” It's worth noting that clicking “Start free trial” opens a window (as shown in the screenshots) with no mention of the $9.99 plan. Moreover, both “See all plans and pricing” and “View plans and pricing” lead to the same page at https://www.adobe.com/creativecloud/plans.html, which conspicuously lacks information about the $9.99 Photoshop and Lightroom bundle.

Interestingly, the only way to land on the link you highlighted is by specifically clicking on “Photo” from the above-mentioned page, or by choosing “Photographers” under “Creativity & Design” on the main page.

It's quite evident that most individuals are naturally drawn to that enticing “View plans and pricing” blue button, which regrettably doesn't guide them to the elusive $9.99 offer.

One would expect the “all” includes ALL packages, so there's no need to navigate the categories.

[J E L]

Here's what I see from the US: “Plans start at US$20.99/mo.”

https://www.adobe.com/products/photoshop.html

Compare these two URLs:

https://www.adobe.com/creativecloud/photography/compare-plans.html

https://www.adobe.com/products/photoshop/compare-plans.html

[Kevin Stohlmeyer]

Thats interesting @J E L and @zvi_t I'll pass this along to the team - agreed it should be more consistent messaging across all landing pages.

[adrencg]

I'm sure they'll improve it, but right now it does kind of suck. But the censorship thing is just beyond insulting. We're all adults and don't need a corporation shielding us from the horrors of our art creations, especially when we're paying customers and they just raised the price. 

[David30122720qek7]

Agree 100 percent. Paying for every use with their credits scheme only to be told a bikini is immoral, or a girl has to be a woman, or similar is going to drive pro photographers and artists insane..and to other platforms.
If I'm working on promo shots for an hotel, and they want ,dare I say it, females, on the beach, is PS going to still throw an error at me every damn time?

[Kevin Stohlmeyer]

@David30122720qek7 please read this thread before commenting - this has been disproven as a myth time and time again.

[3Hounds]

Agree 110%. A little careful prompting and mask creating will get you what you need or want. I have put lingerie on nude models without rejected gens.

[Heiko Kanzler]

@3Hounds Still struggeling with this. I do mostly boudior I would love to use the Generative Expand. Cropping / cutting is one thing, but then pasting in mostly doesn't work as the proportions have changed. How can prompting help?

[David30122720qek7]

Kevin,
Sorry, what thread?. I'm not seeing any links other than to my profile and the entire bugs forum. I'm not even sure what it is that's a myth?
David

[Kevin Stohlmeyer]

HI @David30122720qek7 the thread you are replying to "Paying for every use with their credits scheme only to be told a bikini is immoral, or a girl has to be a woman, or similar" is not true at all.

[MontyWales]

Haaa so I asked for The tardis from Dr Who. I got this 🙂 LOL And they think I should pay for this 

[omnius42]

I assume you mean the anecdotal evidence that some people (3Hounds, for example) have been able to modify pictures with nudity, but I'm not sure we've proven that their success isn't yet another bug.  Clearly this problem exists outside of modifying nude pictures and I have seen the error when doing completely innocuous editing, but the fact that the feature exists to disallow some image editing is not in doubt.  The only question is which of us are going to be inconvenienced by Adobe pre-deciding what is appropriate and what is not.  

[Kevin Stohlmeyer]

@MontyWales You'll need to brush up on what is available and what isn't. Tardis and Doctor Who are copyritghted entities and would not be available in Gen Fill or Firefly. Try entering "police call box" or "british phone booth"

[David30122720qek7]

Kevin,
I have personal experience of spending ages stating "girl" and getting women along with violation errors when trying it. I've had multiple violation errors with "bikini" to the point where I gave up. I could add whelk, weed, grass, clam, rock and God knows how many other words that have generated violation errors too.

My entire post was based on MY experience. I asked for a night sky and got half a woman's head!. Please don't tell me I'm talking rubbish, even unintentionally. It's far from professional to tell a beta tester, giving honest feedback, that they are talking crap.

I genuinely want to know whether I'm going to be charged credits every time Photoshop gets it wrong like this .

[Gregusaurus]

It can take me many, many prompts to get something I like. For instance, if I want to change the background to something specific like a "city scene",  I will do that over and over, sometimes modifying the prompt to get closer to what I want. It's not like just putting in a prompt and being satisfied with the first results. That is rare. If no text prompt is entered, then it is almost always an error. I have to remember to at least add a "." period to get it to begin to work. If there is any flesh, I will need to invert the image, prompt, and then invert back to see the results. My use of credits will be over after only a few days. Credits ignores the actual process of artistic creation. Both the beta version,  Firefly and the updated Photoshop 2024 have errors, subpar results, ludicrouse creations, etc. It takes real commitment to get something extraordinary, which to my delight and surprise is possible.

[daniellei4510]

The "myth" I believe Kevin was referrring to was that GF guideline violations are somehow related to women, female skin, nudity, etc. As I menteioned in anothe post, I've often put clothing (swim tops and bottoms, for example) on nude models to make them acceptable for Facebook. So if you want to talk about nudity issues, take it up with Zuckerberg. 🙂

[David30122720qek7]

I see. I don't recall mentioning that they had a policy to do it, just that it does it. Thanks for the clarification, but in this instance my point was that *when*  it does it , it seems that we will be charged for it despite a bug being responsible. Myth or not, I can't see how it's moral or sensible for us to pay when the software isn't up to the job. I'm hoping for clarification on the topic, but honestly doubt that I'll get it.

[omnius42]

This is one of my images where the model is naked, so I thought I would try what 3Hounds was trying.  I tried the obvious things (bikini, bandau top, bodice) and got errors, but then I started trying non-obvious things.  I got all three of these alternatives with the prompt, "chain mail".  I also got some more consistent results by being less specific, "swimsuit" or "add top" for example (see below).

Here is the best example from "Swimsuit":

Here is the best from "add top":

This image shows my selection for all above images.  I had selected only the area in question and I wasn't very precise about it.  :

Since I was just playing I used a fairly low-res image, but it is one that I own.  

The weirdest thing is that except for "chain mail" and "swimsuit" it only gave me one image per Generate, not three like most prompts.  It makes me wonder if the second generated image didn't throw the error, but instead of displaying the error for me it only stopped generating options.  So, most of these (and several total failures) happened one at a time.  It makes me wonder if they are only showing the error if the first image is bad, and they could continue to generate the second and third images?

[omnius42]

I should have mentioned that these were done with the latest 25.1 beta, not the 25.0 production.

[3Hounds]

Here's a result I just did. Fully nude model. 2 seperate generative fills. 1 prompt was Orange bikin bottom, the next Orange bikini top. No errors or morality police anywhere to be found. Not an actual project, so I didn't complete the blending.

[gadget13769]

Not bad for a very quick subject selection, reverse selection and the prompt "Inside a space craft, photorealistic". Obviusly, I could have worked with the masking to clean it up, but this was 15 seconds.