AI Generative Fill only works for 1024x1024 pixels

[nerpity]

When the AI Generative Fill was in beta, I was able to use it with arbitrary sized selections. For the last several months, the AI fill is blurry on a normal photograph. I've recently discovered that this is because the AI engine now generates the AI at an extremely low resolution and blows that up to fit the art you are currently editing. This is completely unacceptable for my images and makes AI generation useless to me except for the most trivial of applications. 

I'm honestly rethinking my workflow at this point and going to back off my relaiance on the adobe suite of products. Topaz is doing better at AI image cleanup, and if Adobe wants more than the $1000/year I curently pay them for substandard products, then I don't see a good reason to continue my loyalty.. It's just a financial thing at this point. Why would Adobe decide to purposefully make it's AI generation technology bad?  Perhaps they are preparing to charge more money for proper/good quality? I thought this was why I was compelled to subscribe - so that I wouldn't have to deal with a "pay as you go" model. 

Anyone else feeling ripped off?

[D Fosse]

First off, it's $ 120 a year for Photoshop + Lightroom. I don't know where you came up with the 1000 number.

Second, while I don't use generative fill and have never been tempted, I understand it's 2000 pixels square. This is breaking new technology that was unthinkable two years ago, so I have problems relating to the "ripped off" sentiment.

Just out of curiosity - does the competition, aka Affinity, even do this? From what I can see no.

[nerpity]

I do not pay $120/year. I pay some where above $1,079.76/year because I pay for the creative suite and stock. Now you know where I came up with that number. You may not realize this, but the AI tech is in Express, Firefly, Illustrator, Stock, Substance, InDesign, and Lightroom. I don't know if all of those are similarly limted... and frankly, I'm amazed that you knew that there is a 2000 square pixel limitation since that fact isn't listed in the documentation or in the user interface in Photoshop.

I came upon this because I replaced a fence next to a dirt road with terrain in an image and only realized how blurry it was when i went to print that image. It's honestly unacceptable to generate something subpar without at least informing the user. A tiny message in the UI after generation saying that the new image had to be re-sampled to fit the space is all it would take.  

Perhaps you missed my first sentence: "When the AI Generative Fill was in beta, I was able to use it with arbitrary sized selections." This means it's possible and this seems incompatible with your implication that this technology is so amazing and so new that I should just live with the limitations. Also, I've used other AI image generation which supports larger pixel counts. Adobe is kind of coming out of the blue with "generative credits" and that's a bit of a cash grab on top of crippling the technology. It also doesn't matter if Affinity supports AI generation, I can use any number of dedicated AI programs and plug the results into Gimp or PSP or even Affinity. 

I'm sorry if pointing that out and asking developers to remove the artificial limits placed on this technology is a problem for you personally. If these aren't artificial limits, then why were they not present in beta? If there was something wrong with the code generating more than 2000 pixels, then let's hear that from development and let them say "it's just not possible at the moment, but our roadmap includes gradual increases" or "there's a significant bug past 2000 pixels and we're working to correct it - but it's a big architecture chew." etc... 

Anyway, I still feel ripped off and whether that's $120 or $1079.76/year, I'm going to feel that way especially if I have to pay for "generative AI" credits.

Terry

[D Fosse]

your implication that this technology is so amazing

By @nerpity

I implied no such thing. I don't use generative fill - I make my own images.

It's blurry because anything above 2000 pixels square is upsampled. This is to avoid overloading Adobe's servers, where all this is processed.