Generative fill is terrible

[Erich24415775jpml]

Im sorry, but im trying to change the gender on a person in a picture, and I specifically use words like "woman" and "female" and it gives me 90% men.  Was this tested before being released?

[Erich24415775jpml]

Not to mention all the deformed results.  Is the best one of the biggest companies in the world can do?

[Kai303673886wk5]

this fella trying to rant all over the community for a BETA 

[InfiniteWhale]

out of beta and it's getting worse 

[mohamadc73208822]

its gimicky Ai Garbage like a website from the early 2000s

they really need to pay attention to and keep making corrections to how their model is trained its a joke, i type "grass" and get a concrete floor lol

[InfiniteWhale]

No way... I typed in road and got grass!  This is so Adobe hahaha

[Ronny30612554mfuz]

With all do respect, we are almost one year later and it is still very bad quality when it comes to faces, or it actually creating what you want, it understands very badly even with the assistance from multiple prompt sources...

[Graham24508943nobd]

I havn't been able to generate a deceent face for months now. It's a waste of time even trying.  The landscape pictures aren't nearly as good either. 

[TolchockMaltjik]

its getting worse and worse. Most of the time it doesnt give me anything at all. Sometimes it gives me 1 generation if I'm lucky. It really sucks. 

[camptm]

I have tried to like it. But lost all hope on the first project I tried. Its a picture of my house and I selected the area I wanted to add a flower bed. I have tried every term under the sun, "Flower bed, add flowers, plants, mulch, garden, foundation garden" and a bunch of others (all seperate prompts). Every time except for 1 generation, it just badly duplicated the grass around the area. Then I tried their little magical sky replacement that the default tutorial shows working so well. After trying another million prompts like "add stars, night sky, add planets, remove clouds" and some long strings. Every single time it would just move the clouds around or change almost nothing. I am starting to think they are cheating on the tutorial images.

[Joseph3334663432a1]

We've been playing around with it from launch and...it clearly wasn't ready for primetime yet. Not even close. It's actually just awful with 99% of results being nowhere close to useful and so rarely ends up providing the results we're looking for that we're better off handling manually.  It's no longer in beta so that excuse doesn't fly anymore. Results might actually be getting worse tbh. Completely distorted, frequently with no relevance to the terms being entered. To call this AI is a misnomer. 

[defaultut646538y4zg]

I'm not defending it at all- it also frustrates me- but I have learned that the more specific you are- the more it works with you- i.e. put stars in the sky vs. a beautiful array of the stars Sirius, Betelgeuse, Rigel, Antares, and others part of the Milky Way Galaxy in a non light polluted night sky 

[Stephen21957369t8uv]

Trying to remove a car from a street scene. It just replaces the car with another car or parts of a car or a tank.  It won't remove the car. Seems like all the you tube creators have been paid off. They keep postong all these incredibe videos where they seemlessly dissapear all kinds of things. Not working for me.

[InfiniteWhale]

Oh 100%!!!  they are DEFINITELY making fake videos of it working

[InfiniteWhale]

It really is utterly, utterly useless. I just wanted it to add a road into the landscape scene I had and it couldn't manage it.  It generated random cartoon textures, a sky, some grass... nothing it generated was in ANY way even slightly close to being "a road".  It's pathetic. I can't belive they want to charge extra on our CC subscription to use it

[Graham24508943nobd]

Totally agree. I've been using this rubbish since the beta started. Almost everything to do with human or animals is garbage

[Malaki5C13]

Indeed, now that the generative fill feature is accessible to the public, there hasn't been notable enhancement. I'd suggest considering alternative AI image generation tools and employing photo manipulation methods as alternatives. It seems Photoshop hasn't quite lived up to expectations in the AI domain. Let's hope for better developments in the future.

[Graham24508943nobd]

I barely use it now, it's dreadful about 1/2 the generations I try these days go against their guidelines. There's other software that is much better than this nonsense. If you try and change the clothes on a person for example, 75 % of the time the results are unuseable, due to disfigurements, garbage in the background, poor blending and much more.  This should NEVER have been released to the public yet as Malaki said

[Ant Fau]

Generative fill is utter garbage. a waste of time to even try to use, beyond, " make a colorful background" and even then it's hit and miss. Unbelievable a company of this size could release something so useless.

[Abambo]

Generative fill is utter garbage. a waste of time to even try to use, beyond, " make a colorful background" and even then it's hit and miss. Unbelievable a company of this size could release something so useless.

By @Ant Fau

Be happy that it's not replacing the designer right away. Generative fill is work in progress. sometimes it works fine, sometimes it's results are glibberish. But as you are here on beta, don't expect all to be perfect. 

[Frank_B]

@AbamboThey don't expect it to be perfect. They expect generative fill results to be manageable or 'good enough' or even mediocre. But what they get is 'utterly useless', 'rubbish', etc.
The results are not something the designers can work with, tweak, adjust.

[t-delgado]

Yeah it's embarrasingly bad. Feels like they're ripping us off (again and again)

[Sterphy]

It's actually shocking that they are charging extra for this feature in the form of credits.  It's absolutely ridiculous.  Does Adobe even have a business plan or is everyone in the company improvising every day?