Adobe and the cost of AI generative fill

Thursday 4 July 2024, 13:13 by Nando Harmsen | 4,049 views | 8 comments

This article was translated from Dutch with the help of AI. Read the original.

The last few months, Adobe has been under quite a bit of fire. This concerns statements made by the CEO, new terms and the costs that come with using AI generative fill. Perhaps it is less serious than it seems.

To use Lightroom, Photoshop and many more software packages from Adobe, you have to pay. Depending on which software you want, this costs a certain amount per month. For photographers, this is around twelve euros.

Adobe is certainly not the only one. Other software providers have already introduced this, are working on it, or will follow soon. With the arrival of AI generative fill, there is a risk that these costs will increase.

The cost of AI tools

An Adobe subscription seems expensive, but it is not. The question is more whether you think it is worth it.
Creating AI-generated content is expensive. It requires a lot of computing power and bandwidth, and that costs money. We, as users, pay for that, whether we want to or not. Subscription costs could therefore increase.

Generative fill makes a lot possible. If you start using it, it will cost money.
Adobe has already announced that using AI will cost money. They are now using a points system. If you use AI generative fill, you have to spend points.

This does not sound very attractive, and in a way it seems like a clever plan by Adobe. First invest heavily in AI and promote Photoshop Beta with the AI tools available there. Then ask for money.

This is an immediate reason for many Social Media 'photographers' to launch a major attack on the manufacturer. Although this is understandable, you should look at the facts first. If you read how the points system works, you will find that you receive a number of points with your subscription each month.

Each month, the number of points is topped up to the amount included with your subscription. So you cannot save them, unfortunately.
This means in practice that you can use AI generative fill hundreds of times without incurring any extra costs. But it is therefore sensible to use it only when it is really necessary.

Using images to train AI

That brings us to the other point of criticism. Apparently, a condition has been introduced that allows Adobe to use online photos and images for AI training purposes. This should make AI generative fill better.

First of all, as far as I can see, this only applies to images and photos stored online in the cloud, not images on your computer. If you do not use the online features of your Creative Cloud subscription, there does not seem to be much to worry about.

I do find the criticism somewhat hypocritical. Apparently, AI generative fill is an option that all 'photographers' want to use, and which is effectively encouraged. After all, you can use it to remove distracting things so easily.

Although people gratefully use AI generative fill, those complainers then want the AI engine to be unable to learn from their photographic material. In other words, they want the option, while at the same time the system must not learn. Or they want to be paid for using their images in that learning process.

That makes the AI process more expensive, which means that using it also becomes more expensive. You end up in a vicious circle.

If you enjoy creating made-up images and they need to look realistic, the system needs to be able to learn.
Do you want to use all those AI-generated images, or do you want to imitate photos with AI in any way? Then I think it is only logical that you pay for it. I would rather pay extra for this than contribute through increased subscription costs.

Adobe seems to be the first. Other software manufacturers will undoubtedly follow. What do you think of these developments? Let us know in a comment below this post, but keep it civil. Everyone is entitled to an opinion.

Share: WhatsApp Facebook

About the author

Nando Harmsen has been photographing for more than 40 years. He specialises in wedding photography and landscape photography. Nando also gives talks, workshops, masterclasses and photo trips, and regularly reviews new and interesting equipment.

Adobe's AI credit system
by Nando Harmsen
Does AI generative removal make you a lazy photographer?
by Nando Harmsen
Lightroom update with generative AI
by Nando Harmsen
Adobe to acquire Topaz Labs and add its features to Photoshop
by Elja Trum
The Hidden Costs of Using AI
by Nando Harmsen
Easily remove a tattoo with AI in Lightroom Classic
by Elja Trum

Show every article in Other

home

8 comments

Donald Willemsen wrote on Thursday 4 July 2024 at 14:59 | reply
Nothing comes for free, as the saying goes. But the way ADOBE is handling this could certainly use some criticism. First they get everyone excited and then, when many have acquired a taste for it, ADOBE says: Now you have to pay for it. Can we collect?\n\nThere has been another program available for some time that has been working with AI for much longer. In fact, the entire program is based on AI. There is a version that you can purchase with a one-time payment, and new additional applications can be bought separately. The other option is the subscription version. You pay an annual amount and then new additional AI applications are included in the price. That program is called 'Luminar Neo'. The AI applications are certainly no worse than those of ADOBE. It even seems to me that ADOBE's AI applications still have to outgrow their infancy, while Luminar is already further along in that development. \n\nFor now I use both programs. However, there will come a time when I make a choice, but it is still too early for that.
Translated from Dutch.

Mac wrote on Friday 5 July 2024 at 08:14 | reply
If I understand correctly, then you can't use AI generative fill offline.
If you can, then it's nonsense that you should have to pay more because of computing power and bandwidth (because your computer does that)
Translated from Dutch.

Nando wrote on Friday 5 July 2024 at 10:15 | reply
No, you misunderstood me. The computing power for generating content takes place on Adobe's servers (or wherever). The bandwidth is the learning from all those online images.
My computer only sends a command to Adobe's servers.
Translated from Dutch.

kok.f@ziggo.nl wrote on Friday 5 July 2024 at 08:23 | reply
In my opinion, a storm in a teacup and, as Nando rightly points out, sometimes hypocritical. Wanting to have all the new gadgets, but they do not just fall from the sky. Whoever reads the new terms carefully will notice that there is not that much going on. If, for example, you want to share your work via the cloud with people selected by you or with everyone, well then the owner of that cloud (so Adobe) also has to give permission to include it in that cloud. And besides, everyone's privacy is up for grabs everywhere. Do you realize that the use of loyalty cards, debit card payments, credit cards, etc. is linked together by data centers. As a result, they have profiles of virtually everyone that make personal targeting and influence possible. Adobe is apparently the whipping boy now, but it is a general practice.
Translated from Dutch.

Gina Heynze wrote on Friday 5 July 2024 at 10:01 | reply
Many people want everything for free when it comes to editing programs. They buy insanely expensive equipment but can no longer spare any money for a program. As you write, that also costs the makers a lot of money. It's part of our love of photography and that is simply quite an expensive love.
Translated from Dutch.

Peter Van Den Broek wrote on Tuesday 9 July 2024 at 11:59 | reply
There once were also users of Lightroom and Photoshop who didn't like the subscription version at all."You're not going to pay for that!"
That sound has since died down.
That will probably happen again now.
Personally, I think we should be happy with a company like Adobe, which also still approves of third parties making plugins for it that make the process easier. I'm thinking of TK9.

Hats off to Adobe for listening carefully to its users.
Translated from Dutch.

Stefanie wrote on Tuesday 9 July 2024 at 12:37 | reply
I just started using Affinity Photo, I just want to be able to edit my photos and if I want to add something AI-generated then I generate an image on NightCafe and combine it myself, Adobe makes me pay for all kinds of things I have absolutely no need for, just plain Photoshop without generative fill, no Lightroom, and I don't want a subscription at all
Translated from Dutch.

Liesbeth Verkade wrote on Tuesday 9 July 2024 at 21:20 | reply
If I understood correctly after reading your article, Nando, there is actually little to worry about for people who work on a PC. That is also what I understood from another article I had read. I just don't remember which one anymore.

I think it's only logical that you have to pay for new developments. And honestly, I also don't expect Adobe to suddenly rip everyone off now. They know better!!
Translated from Dutch.

Have your say

Please note: Articles older than a week can only be commented on by signed-in visitors.
Would you still like to comment? sign in or create a free account.

Become a better photographer every week

A practical photography tip in your inbox every week.
39,219 photography enthusiasts already receive the tips! More about the weekly mail. Or keep up to date via Facebook. Sign-up secured with Google reCaptcha.

Elja Trum

Photofacts; everything to do with photography!

Would you like to take better photos and keep up with what is happening in photography? Photofacts publishes articles that teach you something about photography — from a product announcement to a practical shooting tip or a look at a website. Photofacts covers photography every day and is a hobby project of Elja Trum's that got out of hand. The articles are written by a team of volunteer authors. If you would enjoy writing one or more articles for Photofacts, do get in touch.More about Photofacts

Photofacts is made possible in part by