CGPress uses technology like cookies to analyse the number of visitors to our site and how it is navigated. We DO NOT sell or profit from your data beyond displaying inconspicuous adverts relevant to CG artists. It'd really help us out if you could accept the cookies, but of course we appreciate your choice not to share data.
The technical storage or access is strictly necessary for the legitimate purpose of enabling the use of a specific service explicitly requested by the subscriber or user, or for the sole purpose of carrying out the transmission of a communication over an electronic communications network.
The technical storage or access is necessary for the legitimate purpose of storing preferences that are not requested by the subscriber or user.
The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for statistical purposes.
The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for anonymous statistical purposes. Without a subpoena, voluntary compliance on the part of your Internet Service Provider, or additional records from a third party, information stored or retrieved for this purpose alone cannot usually be used to identify you.
The technical storage or access is required to create user profiles to send advertising, or to track the user on a website or across several websites for similar marketing purposes.
I quit using photoshop a few years ago and don’t miss it at all. These features are not anything ground breaking. Photoshop still does not live up to the modern day needs in production compared to affinity photo.
I meaaaaan, I get the idea in theory. I’m typically not negative when it comes to technology previews. However, I hate to do anything that involves roto. So when something comes out that claims you essentially don’t have to create a mask because it can do it for you – I’ll take a look.
With that being said, I would never use this. Separating the object from the background is tedious. It’s more tedious when that object has hair and fine details. You can see from the demo that it fails at what is probably the most important part.
I guess what I’m saying is, roughly recognizing an object in the scene and apply a Hail Mary mask not the same as a perfect selection.
The major problem with the latest tools coming out of adobe, is that they are automatic with little to no possibility for user input. Which makes them lottery tools, where you can try your luck, but never rely on them. None of the tools, that have impressed users in teasers and previews, the last 10 years, have been something I could use in the real world, except that I have come to know, that in some cases, they can save some time to get me halfway, but they can never do what they advertise, unless under perfect conditions.
From what I’ve been seeing come out of Adobe lately, they are no longer targeting the professional user, but the semi-professional hobbyist or professional 2D Designer. Like you said, the tools get them halfway there by hand-holding and pushing Adobe Stock.
Make the tools simple-stupid so anyone can do a “meh” job on their project allows Adobe to target a larger demographic for sales. Just my opinion while observing some of what’s been going on… We still use Adobe CC at work and probably will continue to do so because it’s so integrated into our daily work already. Adobe is being smart and targeting the largest demographic to make the largest profit margin.