Darkprincess69
High Priestess of Slaanesh
No, we don't
And I don't think it's fair to accuse us of "running our mouths", when you follow up with no less than THREE lengthy posts as a response...
Just saying...
-
Sign up or login, and you'll have full access to opportunities of forum.
Posting Images
- Thread starter Darkprincess69
- Start date
And I don't think it's fair to accuse us of "running our mouths", when you follow up with no less than THREE lengthy posts as a response...
Just saying...
Darkprincess69
High Priestess of Slaanesh
When .webp support is built into every OS and application, maybe, but until then, I'll continue to use what my software supports. And there's nothing more '90s than having to convert file formats just to get them to work with your chosen software, so please climb down off your high horse and accept the fact that not everybody wants or likes webp, and we are all entitled to air our individual opinions, and must be allowed to do so without getting called "cowards"
If you're going to shout at anyone, then shout at the software developers for not providing support, and please don't bitch at us end users for having issues with unsupported formats
Thank you
Rant over...
mp5stab
Hair and Nails
Webp has better compression, transparency, and animation in one file type. The complaints about it aren’t ever about the file type, but the lack of support, “I first saw webp in 2019 and I couldn’t open it in photoshop so it’s a bad file type” is about the level of discourse I’ve ever gotten from this.
You are right about the problems with jpg. I don’t think it’s a good idea to have next gen file formats named .jpg however. It will lead to weird compatibility problems, inevitably, especially on older hardware. I’d rather not keep using it, since jpg image rot is real on the internet at this point.
As for your other responses: That’s hardly a rant. You need at least one more post.
And I was calling the devs cowards, not you guys, there’s not a much you can do to support an image format, outside of using it. I think it’s annoying that the feature is either not supported or given half-assed implementation, that’s why I think they are being cowardly. Plus, by the time they get around to actually supporting webp, another better image file type will have been made
Funinthetorturechamber
Guard
Hi, uhm, all my picture posts have been edited so far with reason, that they have to be thumbnails. I feel like the most dumb person here, I am sorry, but what exactly is the difference between a thumbnail and a "normal" image? And how do I make the images that I wish to attach/share to a thumbnail?
Greetings,
Fun
Greetings,
Fun
The choice is between 'thumbnail' and 'full size', but if you post 'full size', that runs up usage charges for us.
So use 'Attach files', upload your images, then click 'Insert: thumbnail' on each -
or 'Multiple insert', 'Select all', 'Insert: thumbnails' to insert them all together.
Alex2023
Condemned
Perhaps a noob question and perhaps violation of some local rules I'm still unaware of, but directly related to posting images, so I'll ask anyway:
Browsing picture threads I didn't noticed a single AI-generated one, and their very absence was astounding. Are they banned here? Because I just can not believe nobody ever tried to "draw" something thematic this way. I, for example, did that at the very day I learned the basics of Stable Diffusion. True, 99% (or only 90%, if you're good in writing prompts) of this generated stuff is crap, but remaining 1% (or 10%) are already interesting. But, for some reason, nobody's posting them...
Browsing picture threads I didn't noticed a single AI-generated one, and their very absence was astounding. Are they banned here? Because I just can not believe nobody ever tried to "draw" something thematic this way. I, for example, did that at the very day I learned the basics of Stable Diffusion. True, 99% (or only 90%, if you're good in writing prompts) of this generated stuff is crap, but remaining 1% (or 10%) are already interesting. But, for some reason, nobody's posting them...
M
montycrusto
Guest
Check out this thread:
A.I. Generated Images
It’s not banned (although posting large quantities of it will likely be politely discouraged), but it can be a little controversial, and has led to arguments. Speaking for myself, I don’t want to see A.I. generated images on CF, but I recognise that other opinions exist; I may well be in the minority!
Last edited by a moderator:
I think @montycrusto has said it well. There has been discussion of this from both our resident artists and our writers. Opinions and feelings are mixed. AI-generated works are not banned but I think, at this point in time, a flood of them would not be welcomed.
Alex2023
Condemned
It’s not banned (although posting large quantities of it will likely be politely discouraged), but it can be a little controversial, and has led to arguments. Speaking for myself, I don’t want to see A.I. generated images on CF, but I recognise that other opinions exist; I may well be in the minority!
OK, got it. Please, do not think of me as another spamer seeking the chance to flood yet another site with hundreds and hundreds of "his" "masterpieces"
I was just asking. Anyway, AI (in its current state) is rather bad in complex dynamic scenes and can only produce good portraits and landscapes.
mp5stab
Hair and Nails
I'll speak for myself and say that I like AI art, and I like it a lot better than Barb or Monty do. BUT I like it more when you are more technically involved in the creation. If you are making your own custom models, hypernetworks, etc, I am very interested. If you are using inpainting liberally, to compose images with multiple elements, you are alright. If you are just throwing a bunch of text at an off the shelf model and posting the result with no further adjustment, that's basically just soft spam. I think it's best to err on the side of being more involved.OK, got it. Please, do not think of me as another spamer seeking the chance to flood yet another site with hundreds and hundreds of "his" "masterpieces"
Alex2023
Condemned
So do I, rather fascinated than scared or disgusted. Frankly, I find these endless "true art VS theft and surrogate" flamewars on DeviantArt being a bit scholastic. IMHO AI-generated stuff is not any less "true art" than photography. Both are about using the bizarre sophisticated tools to get the desired result.
And the technology is developing. Some issues mentioned in this "AI generated images" thread are already solved/bypassed. Within another few years all those mainly good pics will become really good. And there is no any way to stop this, and no need to (though I fully understand the frustration of classical artists).
I do both. First bunch of text, then a lot of inpainting since the "raw" generated stuff is almost never satisfactory...
Darkprincess69
High Priestess of Slaanesh
My main issue with AI is not with the technology itself, but the way it is used. Technology should provide ways to enhance creativity, not to be a replacement for it
fallenmystic
Tribune
I agree with your sentiment but I believe AI is not much different from traditional tools in that regard.
The way people use AI to create artwork may differ from one person to another. Some use it to create original art while others use it to 'remake' existing works or plagiarise them. Some people like to throw random prompts at AI, hoping it will create something funny or strange (and it may do that from time to time).
But is it so much different from the way it was before AI? Maybe so quantitatively, but nothing fundamentally so.
Traditional artists copy other people's ideas or styles all the time, and when a sufficient number of them do so, it becomes a 'genre' or a 'trend'. And many try to make something new out of the existing works of others, be it called collaging, homaging, remaking, 'manip', or whatever. The artistic value of such works is usually judged by how much originality the author bestowed upon their work in the process, not by the medium they used or the mere fact that they used an existing work.
As to the problem with agency, I believe we have enough artists who do things like spraying paint over a canvas randomly and hoping people would fancy there must be some deep meaning behind the act. AI isn't that much different in this regard either, maybe except for the fact that it can create something more exciting than random paint patterns.
Of course, there are extreme cases like using AI to generate a whole South Park episode or even a novel. But even in such cases, it's ultimately up to the human author to decide the theme and direct the creation process, like how a film director can create a film by telling others what they need to do without being able to act or write themselves. All they need to be a good film director is a vision of what the final result should be, and an ability to direct others to actualise what they imagined. Directing AI to produce a whole story or an episode isn't much different from that.
If the concept of photography as a valid branch of art can survive the era when almost everyone owns a smartphone and takes random crap photos with it, I believe AI might remain a legitimate tool of art even if there are people who flood the internet with low-effort AI-generated images.
Last edited:
Just one point to emphasise, our limit for artists' own, original work (including AI assisted images that have entailed serious effort) is 2MB per image (up to 5 per day in any one thread) The limit of 400KB is only for 'found' images from elsewhere. To judge from what we see of artists' work here, the 2MB limit isn't seriously inhibiting them from producing some excellent creations. And if 'found' images are uploaded as jpgs, the 400KB limit doesn't seem to prevent members from posting lively collections and illustrated stories.
Imposing these limits has had an appreciable effect in reducing our charges for excess usage, which were seriously endangering the viability of the site: but they still add around 40% to our monthly bill.
Imposing these limits has had an appreciable effect in reducing our charges for excess usage, which were seriously endangering the viability of the site: but they still add around 40% to our monthly bill.
Last edited:
mp5stab
Hair and Nails
I will say that I can post a jpg 1440x1440, so proper high definition, with only 10% compression, and fit within those limits. You can push the quality a little higher, but there are diminishing returns. If I could post webp for more efficient compression, I would. It doesn't have much support tho. The higher quality PNG is still gonna be the "definitive" version, fresh out of iray, which I post on my server. Might make that Mega folder, IDK.