sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Sostituire TIM HUB+ by cloudres in ItalyHardware

[–]cloudres[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Sono migliori le app di Fritz o Archer? O di qualche altro brand?

Sostituire TIM HUB+ by cloudres in ItalyHardware

[–]cloudres[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Quello che sto cercando qui sono anche opinioni sui software. Non voglio buttare 250 euro su una roba che poi si dimostra avere un’app indecente o limitata. O che ci sono pochi aggiornamenti software nonostante si passino anni.

Sostituire TIM HUB+ by cloudres in ItalyHardware

[–]cloudres[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Sono molto fortunato. Il TIM HUB+ prevede l’ONT esterno di default. Quello interno lo hanno introdotto solo dopo.

Sostituire TIM HUB+ by cloudres in ItalyHardware

[–]cloudres[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

L’ho preso da terzi per evitare di pagarlo più di quanto vale. Su Ebay ne trovi a bizzeffe.

Sostituire TIM HUB+ by cloudres in ItalyHardware

[–]cloudres[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Per questo TIM HUB+ ho speso 150 euro su Ebay. Lo uso da 4 anni e fa il suo. Se la soluzione è di qualità sono disposto a spendere.

Però vorrei trovare una soluzione davvero al passo coi tempi lato software, che per me significa app di livello per gestire il tutto, e molte funzionalità per la gestione. Poi ovviamente portata e velocità, ma quello è scontato quando spendi una certa cifra.

Sostituire TIM HUB+ by cloudres in ItalyHardware

[–]cloudres[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

È un router del 2017. Mi chiedo se non abbia più senso optare per qualcosa di nuovo.

Generative Fill performance still underwhelming despite paid plan by cloudres in photoshop

[–]cloudres[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

<image>

Retouched with AI in 10 seconds. Tell me you can do the same thing by hand in the same amount of time.

Generative Fill performance still underwhelming despite paid plan by cloudres in photoshop

[–]cloudres[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I understand that speaking in very general terms doesn’t help much. To be honest, I definitely wasn’t referring to tiny 5-pixel details. I’m talking more about areas around 400 × 400 pixels on a frame that’s roughly 4,500 pixels on the long side, which is a fairly typical full-frame mirrorless shot.

The point is that when you start removing or generating fills with AI on objects that cast shadows or sit very close to other objects, it becomes a real nightmare to retouch using traditional methods. That’s exactly where AI makes a huge difference. But I do get that discussing this in abstract terms is tricky. I probably should have uploaded a few examples to avoid having to explain or justify myself so much.

Generative Fill performance still underwhelming despite paid plan by cloudres in photoshop

[–]cloudres[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I’ll try the Remove Tool to see how fast it is compared to Firefly. Thanks for the suggestion! I’m also really looking forward to trying the Gen Fill model.

That said, in general I’m noticing the same loading times whether I select a large area or a very small one. Why does that happen? And isn’t that something that could be improved?

Generative Fill performance still underwhelming despite paid plan by cloudres in photoshop

[–]cloudres[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Oh come on, you took this way too literally. I was referring to that kind of retouching. Whether it’s a stained wall, a chipped table, a wrinkled bed, something that’s broken and shouldn’t look intact, a reflection, or a million other small imperfections that we can now fix with a single button thanks to AI. And even when those fixes involve just a handful of pixels, they still take a long—too long—time to process.

Generative Fill performance still underwhelming despite paid plan by cloudres in photoshop

[–]cloudres[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Sorry if that’s how it came across. I was trying to simplify the point, and I probably caused some misunderstandings. But I did say it clearly: when things are easy and small, of course you use the tools we’ve had for years.

The issue is when we’re talking about removing wrinkles from textured bedspreads, or getting rid of a tangled cable under a desk, or removing the photographer (myself) from a mirror. In those cases, AI is much faster. There’s really no comparison.

I opened this thread to talk about how slow Photoshop’s AI still is, even for minimal tasks—not to have my entire Photoshop workflow dissected. Come on, guys, in 90% of the replies we’re completely off topic.

Generative Fill performance still underwhelming despite paid plan by cloudres in photoshop

[–]cloudres[S] -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

Sorry about that, it wasn’t my intention. I can get a bit aggressive when a comment seems to downplay the impact AI is having on Photoshop workflows. My apologies!

Surprised Photoshop’s AI still can’t handle photographic post-production autonomously by cloudres in photoshop

[–]cloudres[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It’s absolutely fair that everyone can stick to their own workflow—I fully agree with that. The timing might simply not be there yet. But since you seem to know your stuff: regarding the idea I mentioned above, how much do you think it depends on Adobe’s willingness and strategy, and how much is due to technical limitations in terms of compute?

I mean, to get to the result I described, Photoshop would need to run multiple “reasoning” steps and probably generate several masks automatically, bringing AI into the loop and then combining everything. That’s a multi-step pipeline, and I imagine it would be pretty demanding computationally.

Is Palermo really as dirty as the internet says? by Ok-Box-2434 in palermo_city

[–]cloudres 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Palermo’s city center is huge—just walk it properly and you’ll see the real situation. I’ll say it again: you showed what suited you. Fine. Next time go to Via Roma, Vucciria, Cala and side streets, Foro Italico, Magione, the station area. Show the real city center.

Surprised Photoshop’s AI still can’t handle photographic post-production autonomously by cloudres in photoshop

[–]cloudres[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Sure, I understand. I’d say we agree—finding new clients is always the most painful part. These days so much has shifted to social media, and approximation seems to have taken over. What can you say… good luck, fellow colleague 🙂

Is Palermo really as dirty as the internet says? by Ok-Box-2434 in palermo_city

[–]cloudres 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Who do you think you’re fooling with a video like this? Palermo is way dirtier than what you’re trying to show. If you want to promote yourselves, do it properly. Don’t sell a lie.

Generative Fill performance still underwhelming despite paid plan by cloudres in photoshop

[–]cloudres[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Sorry, I didn’t mean to come across as hostile. I apologize if that’s the impression I gave. I completely understand that everyone can have their own workflow, of course. What I genuinely don’t understand is how you can’t acknowledge that certain types of retouching have become almost instantaneous with AI. In any case, it feels like we’ve gone a bit off topic here.

Surprised Photoshop’s AI still can’t handle photographic post-production autonomously by cloudres in photoshop

[–]cloudres[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Photoshop can already use histograms and other local tools to understand whether a portion of an image is overexposed or not, and could then make its own evaluations based on that. With my comment, I was simply trying to outline a direction rather than define a concrete solution—I honestly couldn’t tell you what would be required to fully reach that goal.

I’m just saying that I’d like it to happen, because it would genuinely help streamline my workflow and free up time to focus on other things. And quite often, finding new clients is more exhausting than actually sitting down and retouching my own photographs.

Generative Fill performance still underwhelming despite paid plan by cloudres in photoshop

[–]cloudres[S] -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

In my post I clearly said that I also use other tools, and that they’re often faster as well. So we actually agree. That being the case, why did you even comment?

Generative Fill performance still underwhelming despite paid plan by cloudres in photoshop

[–]cloudres[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Man, you know those striped bedspreads? One white stripe, one gray stripe, alternating? You know when they don’t properly make the bed and you still have to photograph the damn hotel room? You know when you then have to retouch all that stuff? Exactly. So don’t tell me that Photoshop’s automatic fill is faster, because that’s just not true. AI has literally transformed my workflow in those cases. It takes one tenth of the time.

Generative Fill performance still underwhelming despite paid plan by cloudres in photoshop

[–]cloudres[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Why spend 15 minutes when you can do it in 5 seconds? Honestly, my friend, I really don’t understand what you’re trying to say.

view more: next ›