Adobe Bringing Us a Super Update

It's something every single person using Photoshop today has battled with, and although it has become easier to use over the years, it's time-consuming, tedious, and often difficult to do well depending on the image you're working on. Making selections is the tool we use to isolate certain parts of the image. To either reuse or edit in a different fashion to the rest of the image. Using machine learning, an update coming to Photoshop makes it possible to click and select. That's right, no more pen tool, or magnetic lasso tool or the selection of the negative space to feather and smooth the selection. This video shows how it will work, and in my opinion, it can't come soon enough. 

Adobe's AI platform, Sensei, has grown to great strengths. With the Adobe Max conference, we were able to see how a lamp post can be edited out in video, and how we can use someone else's face and mouth and narrate to it, almost like that one episode of Netflix's Black Mirror where the character wins the election.

The downside is that there is almost no more skill involved, and just like anyone can now take photos because everyone has a camera, now everyone will also be able to select objects in their photos as they want, edit it and create their unique style and look. It's going to make it easier to express our visions through the work we do, but there will also be a lot more graphic artists and photographers who want their voices heard. It's an interesting time ahead. 

In my opinion, technology and tools must become as easy and user-friendly as possible. Why not. I'm looking forward to using it. Adobe is really making some exciting developments happen in their software. What do you guys think, what tools will you like to have updated or changed? 

Posted In: 
Log in or register to post comments

49 Comments

Cherylyn Soltero's picture

I think you're right... It will be easier for just anyone to use these tools. But, one thing I'm seeing through some of the photography competitions I'm doing, is that while anyone can take a picture, it still takes a lot of work and ability to master true artistry. I think the industry continues to change and yet it doesn't. Nothing takes the place of dedication and hard work, no matter how easy the software makes the process.

If by ability you are referring specifically to skill then it takes none whatsoever to master artistry since there is nothing more subjective than art.

She wrote "master TRUE artistry", not that subjective BS.

Ah, sarcasm. Got it.

I didn't think I was being sarcastic. To me, art is kinda like sex. There's intentional sex as God and nature intended it and then there're many substitutes with similar results. Real art is NOT subjective. You might not like it but it is what it is and nothing else is it. Of course, other objects can inspire you to action, cause you to weep for their beauty, or provoke deep consideration but they aren't art. Smearing poop on a statue is NOT art! The vast majority of photography is NOT art!
The key words here are, "to me". Anyone else is, of course, free to maintain their own erroneous view of the subject.

Well if you were serious then my original comment to her is also my response to you.

So what's "real art"? Only the art that you like?

How do you know what God and nature intended regarding sex beyond reproduction?

I said it doesn't matter if you like it or not. In the same way you don't have to like pizza, it's still pizza and nothing else is. They make pizza flavored Pringles but they're not pizza.

I knew you would ask what "real art" is. :-) I wish we lived near each other. I think you'd make a really interesting neighbor! Interestingly, but not coincidentally, my criteria for real art is similar to my statement about sex. Art should be an honest attempt to convey thoughtful reflection on beauty, social issues, ideas, etc.

While it's a hyperbolic example, smearing poop on a statue of Mary isn't an honest criticism of religion or Catholicism and, therefore, not art. It's the visual equivalent of saying, "Fuck You". An honest approach, and worthy of being considered art, might be something like a painting of Inquisitors torturing people while, in an adjacent room, their similarly clad brethren are baptizing children. Sorry. It's the best I could come up with after only a few moments thought. BTW, I'm not against Catholics. I was merely trying to provide an extreme example of art. In the context of the article, most photography isn't art because there's no intent at all. Taking a photo of something you think is pretty isn't intentional of anything beyond wanting to capture and/or share something that caught your eye. It would become art had the photographer put time and thought into maximizing or calling attention to whatever it was that attracted them to the scene. Further, they should attempt to convey their feelings about the scene. Otherwise, it's photojournalism. Nothing wrong with that, but it isn't art.

I know God's intent (at least God as I understand Him) through what's written in the Bible. Nature, being incapable of thought, "intends" sex which provides a benefit to the species. Heterosexual sex is necessary for its continuation. Homosexuality encourages behavior which inhibits its continuation. Kind of like scientists who try to control a species, harmful to man, by introducing sterile members which, due to engaging in non-productive sex, diminish the total number of individuals. While you could successfully argue there are some benefits to homosexuality (Bonobos come to mind), masturbation, sodomy, etc., those same benefits would also be realized through heterosexuality, with the added benefit of reproduction.

I could go on, and in much greater detail, for a very long time but this venue is not ideal for such intercourse. (Pun intended) :-)

"Art should be an honest attempt to convey thoughtful reflection on beauty, social issues, ideas, etc."

Who are you to define "thoughtful reflection on beauty"?

While an interesting intellectual exercise, your question is disingenuous. Next you'll want me to define "sex" and "is". :-/
Maybe it's better we live in different parts of the country. ;-)

Spy Black's picture

Actually what features like this do is make it easier for companies to put non-graphics trained people to do production work, and pay them peanuts for it. This way you have one graphics pro overseeing group of button pushers. I see this already in some studios.

Maybe I'm missing something. It looks like it only simplifies the initial selection, which isn't really that big a deal. A little time consuming, yes, but nothing compared to creating the final selection.

Also, I agree with Cherlyn. Technology chips away at those who depend on it for the bulk of their results but has a much smaller effect on artists.

Johnny Rico's picture

Well that was extremely underwhelming.

And they still can't figure out why even the new Super Lightroom Classic Deluxe 4k HDR CC is even slower than the last version.

You forgot Duper after Super.

Christoph .'s picture

My latest update is a lot faster... Not CaptureOne speeds but still a lot faster.

Lightroom Classic takes up to four seconds on my 3.4Ghz i7 iMac with 32GB of RAM and a 1TB SSD to see in detail images at 1:1 of relatively small Sony a6000 RAW files with absolutely no adjustments yet made to them. That is absolutely crap performance. The same applies with GPU acceleration turned on or off.

Edit: I just now discovered all these .dat files I've never seen before being generated by Lightroom Classic. Out of no where it shows it started a few days ago. Ugh.

Edit: Neve mind on the .dat files. That was a folder location oversight on my part. Lightroom is working correctly in that regard.

On the viewing problem above it appears that Lightroom is not taking advantage of all the RAM I have when cycling back and forth through images at 1:1. Lightroom not taking full advantage of resources wouldn't be new and surprising.

Spy Black's picture

Are you running other programs and processes in the background? I have a similarly equipped PC and I don't have this issue with the 24 meg files off my D600. I do have a better graphics card than yours, but not by much (960).

Nope, nothing else going on in the background. It's odd too because what I'm doing is simply using the arrow keys on my Mac cycling back and forth through images that are set to view at 1:1 and most times they take as long as I said and other times they are as fast as the edited TIF alongside it. It's as if Lightroom is making crappy use of RAM, never mind RAW processing speed, which wouldn't surprise me. Thing is, I don't recall this kind of behavior before this new Classic version.

I may just do a reinstall and see what happens because I don't like seeing all those .dat files that have all of a sudden started appearing out of nowhere.

Did you try turning off Graphics processor Acceleration?

Yep, I mentioned that Sam.

Tyler Chappell's picture

Lol because you're using a craptastic Mac. Try using a real computer.

That's some deep and impressive computer trouble shooting skills you got there.

Yes mine was faster for about a week on both my machines (iMac 32gb ram SSD, Macbook Pro i7 16gb ram SSD), then out of nowhere just scrubbing through images will bring it to a halt, sometimes taking 5 seconds or more between photos. Did everything adobe support told me, same terrible result. I've been wanting to switch to Capture for a while think this makes it official

Sounds like it may be related to what I'm experiencing.

Christoph .'s picture

I don't know that this will be a gamechanger... Probably more like one of these updates that get added and is hardly functional or near unusable quality output like their last refine "update" was.

Or it could be the next content-aware fill, who knows

Dallas Dahms's picture

Still. Hate. Photoshop.

I think I'd rather have my eyes sewn shut than sit for hours and hours doing editing in Photoshop. Long live the simplicity of Lightroom.

Agreed. I love Lightroom but I wish Adobe didn't own it. I'm getting worse performance now in simply viewing images at 100%. See my post above.

Dallas Dahms's picture

I am looking forward to the day that there is a worthy competitor to Lr Classic that will even allow you to import Lr catalogs with their adjustments. Luminar looks promising, but it doesn't have the kind of editing and exporting features I need (specifically export presets with watermarks built in).

What I mostly love about Lightroom are the tools and the user interface. I believe it is the best designed photo editing app ever created. What hurts my experience is the performance, which at best is inconsistent.

Simple problems, simple solution (LR). Complex problems, complex solution (PS).

More comments