It's now turned off by default in the latest version. You have to go dig in the options to switch it on. This topic could be closed now. It's good how it works now. ... View more

It's good to have these discussions, but I think everyone should be happy now. Adobe has walked back forcing this metadata on us, so now it's left to the moral discretion of the author, which I believe is the right way myself.   I was removing all the Adobe metadata anyway with exiftool as I didn't believe I was doing anything morally objectional in the way I was using AI and didn't believe (in my own mind) that I was doing anything that required broadcasting my very small edits. ... View more

I only have two use cases: extending backgrounds to change photo ratio (often the photographer sends me a pic that is cropped so close to the subject that I can't pull all the ratios I need for socials, 1x1, 2x3, 4x5, 7x8 and 9x16), and removing objects, usually things like electric outlets or heating vents.   The fact is we've had Photoshop for close to three decades and almost never has anyone disclosed on any medium that they have used Photoshop to edit their output. No banners saying clone tools or spot removal was used. Why is it a thing now? (I realize this doesn't take into account some modern regulations or statutes that are asking for these things in regards to the way that models have been touched up in regards to body modifications) ... View more

[citation needed] I need to see some definite scientific research that shows that an LLM "copies" things any differently than a human does? Most humans aren't born with a knowledge of how to take photos and make art. We learn by watching and reading -- "copying." Anyone who is using Photoshop is manipulating their images. That's why they are commenting in this forum. That's why they bought Photoshop. The tools in Photoshop have "generated" material since v0.63. The user didn't manually draw each pixel of the clone tool, the tool has an algorithm which decides which pixels to move. The user didn't draw each pixel of the spot removal tool, the algorithm did. Just because AI uses more lines of code to produce a better result doesn't mean it is in any way different to the tools that already existed. ... View more

I call shennanigans. I bet Nat Geo isn't taking the RAW file directly from the camera and publishing it. If they haven't applied a LUT, tweaked the contrast and white balance, then they are liars. They should also explicitly state if they had an ND filter on the lens, for instance, because that alters the light hitting the lens and is clearly image manipulation. If they used a flash for the shot too, this needs to be clearly and starkly disclosed, because then the lighting isn't natural sunlight. More manipulation, more fakery. ... View more

Honestly, I don't see any ethical reason to use Photoshop at all unless you are trying to decieve. All Photoshop does it change what the camera recorded into something it didn't record, either through things like color corrections, clone tools, spot removal, pinching waistlines. I would say the vast majority of Photoshop users are using it for deception. If you follow this line of thinking to its logical conclusion every image modified with any Photoshop tools should be clearly and starkly labeled to show the changes that have occurred. ... View more

This is amazing news, thank you. I just checked and it is right there in settings. It is so very rare for a company to actually listen to its customers and roll back a bad decision. It's almost unbelievable. First we had OpenAI roll back their over-zealous censorship on ChatGPT to a sensible level, and now this. If Adobe would now just fix Gen AI we'd be in utopia. ... View more

How many magazine photos do you see that say "MADE WITH PHOTOSHOP" on them? Why aren't magazines compelled by Adobe to put a big warning on every photo where they have used color correction, spot removal tools, clone tools? Seems totally unethical to me that magazines wouldn't put a big warning box across the image so we're not tricked into thinking that model doesn't have a wart on her chin or that she's 20lbs heavier than she looks. I saw the making of a Starbucks commercial the other day. They faked an entire indoor scene with sets. This was not disclosed in the commercial on TV. I think they should run a 15 second warning in front of the commercial to let people know it wasn't a real coffee shop. I feel cheated. I don't want their products knowing they would be this dishonest about presenting them. Next you'll find out the "patrons" were paid actors who don't even like coffee. Where will this madness end? ... View more

It feels like an accident. Adobe are all-in on this Content Credentials thing, even though it hurts artists more than it helps by labeling content with no AI in it as AI. Maybe they had a change of heart, but that doesn't feel like something that would happen. ... View more

Yes, they did. I've been keeping quiet about it because I didn't want to tip them off and have them fix it. Too late🤣 ... View more

  Photoshop informed me this file is too explicit and violates their moral and ethical guidelines and Generative AI cannot be used to expand the background so I can crop it slightly wider. Am I a deviant? That's essentially what Adobe is saying. I realize that American corporations are being ordered to excise all women's rights and to adopt a more "Judeo-Christian" focus. Do we know if Adobe is part of this anti-inclusivity movement to crush the rights of minorities and perhaps only allow images of men of specific ethnicities to be edited with their products? ... View more

It's definitely the distance to the person too. When I see something in the background I need to erase and it's a decent number of pixels from the subject of the photo I let out an audible sigh of relief as I know it probably won't give me a lecture today. ... View more

This is an exact summary of the problem. Thank you. ... View more

Me too, every single time I forward them the image. There's no way to know if anyone receives these or if it's a black hole, sadly. ... View more

I get around it in Photoshop itself. It is fairly easily tricked. As long as it can't see a feminine-looking person in the photo, it'll let you do background removal, canvas extend etc. If I want to do canvas extend (my most common use because I get photos that end up needing to be 1:1 cropped for socials but the subject is cropped too close already), then I crop out most of the woman, extend what remains of the canvas, copy that new image, CTRL+Z to get the subject back, change canvas size and drop in the extra. It's frustrating that Photoshop won't let us do it directly, but we can get around it, so that in the end their restriction is functionally and totally pointless at achieving whatever weird aim it is trying to get at.   [and on another note, I recently paid for Luminar Neo's Gen AI features and the restrictions are essentially identical -- if doesn't work in PS it won't work in Neo either] ... View more

Believe me, I try to use every other tool before I touch Gen AI because of the other problems. Sometimes, say with a background extend, it would take you hours of inpainting manually to do what Gen AI can do in 5 seconds, so I'll just struggle and crop the edge of the photo, extend that and paste the results back in. ... View more

This. It doesn't need to contain any nudity at all. Off the shoulder sweater will get you a moral outrage from Photoshop. It only does this on female photos. It's clearly gender-descriminating.   One comment in this thread said we should just use Sensei instead. I looked that up because I didn't know it is, but it apparently only works on Premiere and AE, so no use for background extending my photos. ... View more

I've edited literally hundreds of model photos over the last year. One thing I can tell you for 100% certain: the models don't need to be remotely nude. What triggers the error is: 1) the model is female, not male; 2) there is any skin showing (e.g. arms, or legs). Face showing is fine, we're not at the point where we can only edit photos of women with faces covered, but I would say in 10% of the time I get the error it is with a model who is fully clothed, but wearing a t-shirt and shorts for instance.   Only happens with female models, not male.   90% of my use is extending the background. I don't take the photos. I sometimes plan the poses and shoots, but I'm not the photographer. Often I get a great photo, but there's not enough space around the model for all the social media crops we do (1x1, 7x8, 9x16 etc) so I need to extend the background. I can get around it often by cutting out the model, extending, and putting the back together. I shouldn't have to do this. ... View more

Yes, this undo bug has been there since day one and Adobe has been aware of it since then but has not developed a fix sadly. That's why I strip Content Credentials from every image immediately after I save it. This is my script that removes all the meta data except the color profile: "Exiftool\exiftool(-k).exe" -all= -JUMBF:all= -tagsfromfile @ -icc_profile -overwrite_original -ext "jpg" -ext "JPG" -ext "jpeg" -ext "JPEG" -ext "PNG" .   ... View more

I do not believe any copy is being made of your images. That site simply checks for the exif data in your files. I just dragged and dropped an image from Photoshop that I had removed the Content Credentials from onto that tool and it said there are no Content Credentials in the file. ... View more

That is misinformation. Exiftool easily strips the Content Credentials. I use it every single day for only this task. ... View more

Yeah, it's crazy. Just make sure to under this stuff. Strip every file as soon as you save it. I keep a terminal window open 24x7 now so that as soon as I export a file I just run exiftool over it to remove all the metadata. ... View more

The crazy thing is you can just create some GenAI in another tab, copy it and paste it into your image and Photoshop is none the wiser. None of this stuff makes sense. I get that we're still in version 1.0 of all this AI stuff and trying to find our way, but that's why we really need a button to turn off the tags on the export for when mistakes are made. Self-driving cars let you grab the wheel and hit the brakes when they are making a mistake. Why can't Adobe let you have manual control when you see an error? ... View more

I didn't use any AI tools in the exported image. Zero. There was absolutely no use of AI in the exported image. Adobe and Meta both state there was. Meta states it publicly on my wall for everyone to see. Makes me look like a scammer. That's textbook libel. ... View more

Thank you. This creates liability though. Meta is assuming the tags are the truth, which they are not. I'm half-tempted now to file a Small Claims libel case against Meta for publicly labeling my photos as AI when there is no AI in them. They probably have an arbitration clause in their T&Cs, though. I'm going to fire off a Cease-and-Desist first to see what happens. ... View more

Used (past tense). Was no AI content in the final image as I dragged the AI layer into the trash. Why does Adobe lie and put AI tags in the image when there is no AI in the image? That's the explanation that is necessary. ... View more

Tried to use GenAI tonight to remove a black blob from the background. Results were subpar, so I dragged the layer to the trash and just exported the single untouched background layer. STILL my photo is "Made with AI"🤣   Explain that! ... View more

I don't want to shut off Gen AI. I want it to work on all my photos, but I don't want the tags. I'm used to patching in/out features in executables from growing up in the 80s where it was a common thing to do. I think the easier solution for me is just to write a new image export plugin, which would solve this. ... View more

Funnily enough I just tested to see if GenAI would let me edit the Pioneer spaceprobe plaque or it would get upset by the man and woman, but it let me give her shoes😂 ... View more

I maintain that I paid for the tool, why can't I switch the tagging off? I can easily strip it, and I do, with exiftool. I wish I could patch it out of Photoshop. ... View more