Any free art software for colleges

[I am Nobody]

I was thinking of trying a few out. Anything easy to use?

[gundam]

Gimp is free and it has a gentle learning curve

[Womenshrinker]

PhotoRoom is a good free 1 to have

[Raso719]

Gonna second GIMP. I've used it successfully many times in the past. Hell I've also used MS Paint and Power Point.
If you aren't worried about convincing anthropologists of the existing of tiny people with photo realistic images there are lots of options out there.

[Prof Sai]

Pixelmator isn't free, but it is low cost and it's AI based cutout and repair tools are very useful.

[foreverlurk]

Paint.NET is also free and similar to GIMP, but simpler to use IMHO:

https://www.getpaint.net/

[Little Sally]

I was thinking of trying a few out. Anything easy to use?

Whatever you choose, you're going to have to learn it to get the best out of it. They won't produce pictures for you like AI programs do.

If you want to try free stuff give it a go, but at the end of the day, I believe you'll get the results that you choose to pay for (or don't pay for).

I've used this program for years and I've never had the need to upgrade from it, and it would be money well spent in my opinion. There'll be loads of PS programs out there probably newer than this example, so you aren't stuck for choice.

[foreverlurk]

They won't produce pictures for you like AI programs do.

Just FYI the newer versions of Adobe software actually implemented generative AI workflows for stuff like editing, inpainting, outpainting, etc.

https://www.adobe.com/ca/products/photoshop/ai.html

[Little Sally]

They won't produce pictures for you like AI programs do.

Just FYI the newer versions of Adobe software actually implemented generative AI workflows for stuff like editing, inpainting, outpainting, etc.

https://www.adobe.com/ca/products/photoshop/ai.html

Yes, I'm sure the latest versions of Photoshop are all singing and dancing with the latest tech, but I wouldn't choose to upgrade now for cost reasons alone. Mine still does all I need it to do (bought it years ago).

Unless you get satisfaction out of creating imagery from scratch (like using actual real people against backgrounds you've got at home, or have web searched for), then I guess AI is the way to go. But I don't decry anyone for going down that path, it just doesn't interest me creatively.

[eddiegiantman]

They won't produce pictures for you like AI programs do.

Just FYI the newer versions of Adobe software actually implemented generative AI workflows for stuff like editing, inpainting, outpainting, etc.

https://www.adobe.com/ca/products/photoshop/ai.html

Yes, I'm sure the latest versions of Photoshop are all singing and dancing with the latest tech, but I wouldn't choose to upgrade now for cost reasons alone. Mine still does all I need it to do (bought it years ago).

Unless you get satisfaction out of creating imagery from scratch (like using actual real people against backgrounds you've got at home, or have web searched for), then I guess AI is the way to go. But I don't decry anyone for going down that path, it just doesn't interest me creatively.

It's understandable, it just feels insane AI is gonna be used for everything at this point, even my earbuds are using AI to recognize my voice, that's scary as hell.

It might help with background settings but for actual poses of women? I like the realer, the better.

I use https://www.photopea.com/ but I think I might jump soon.

[Little Sally]

Just FYI the newer versions of Adobe software actually implemented generative AI workflows for stuff like editing, inpainting, outpainting, etc.

https://www.adobe.com/ca/products/photoshop/ai.html

Yes, I'm sure the latest versions of Photoshop are all singing and dancing with the latest tech, but I wouldn't choose to upgrade now for cost reasons alone. Mine still does all I need it to do (bought it years ago).

Unless you get satisfaction out of creating imagery from scratch (like using actual real people against backgrounds you've got at home, or have web searched for), then I guess AI is the way to go. But I don't decry anyone for going down that path, it just doesn't interest me creatively.

It's understandable, it just feels insane AI is gonna be used for everything at this point, even my earbuds are using AI to recognize my voice, that's scary as hell.

It might help with background settings but for actual poses of women? I like the realer, the better.

I use https://www.photopea.com/ but I think I might jump soon.

I agree, and AI (as used on fetish sites like this one) is just a lazy way of creating imagery. It could be likened to getting a real artist to do a commision for you because you're not artistically talented, except you don't have to do that now. You just tell a computer program what you want to see, with text prompts. It'll be voice prompts soon as well, if it isn't already lol!

We're entering a dangerous new AI world Eddie, and the abuse of it is already evident on various social media platforms.

Mini rant over.

[foreverlurk]

It's understandable, it just feels insane AI is gonna be used for everything at this point, even my earbuds are using AI to recognize my voice, that's scary as hell.

It might help with background settings but for actual poses of women? I like the realer, the better.

I agree, and AI (as used on fetish sites like this one) is just a lazy way of creating imagery. It could be likened to getting a real artist to do a commision for you because you're not artistically talented, except you don't have to do that now. You just tell a computer program what you want to see, with text prompts. It'll be voice prompts soon as well, if it isn't already lol!

We're entering a dangerous new AI world Eddie, and the abuse of it is already evident on various social media platforms.

Mini rant over.

Hey, who are you calling lazy!?



I'm not that old, but I can remember a time when "real" artists where complaining about digital arts (ie. Photoshop) as not being "real art", just like last century photography was decried as "the mortal enemy of art". But they're just tools, and I'm confident art and artists will survive, even if change IS scary.

(Really sorry for derailing the thread!)

[rscholar]

I've been using Bing AI and just tried Imagine With Meta:

*Bing*
Pros: A bit more consistent with understanding size prompts, can make some interesting particle effects.
Cons: Has "credits" that allow for faster generation, then slows to a crawl once they're used up. "Photorealistic" quality is nice but still mosly fake-looking and can dip in quality if request gets too outlandish.

*Meta*
Pros: No credits, infinite usage that generates in about 10 seconds every time. "Photorealistic" (aside from usual risk of face smudge and extra limbs) is *gorgeous*.
Cons: Takes a lot of wrangling to get anything close enough, size prompts work more for environment than subject (ie, "tiny shrinking woman" won't cut it).

Here are some examples from Bing and Meta, respectively with roughly the same prompt:

[Little Sally]

Hey, who are you calling lazy!?

(image)

I'm not that old, but I can remember a time when "real" artists where complaining about digital arts (ie. Photoshop) as not being "real art", just like last century photography was decried as "the mortal enemy of art". But they're just tools, and I'm confident art and artists will survive, even if change IS scary.

(Really sorry for derailing the thread!)

Hey don't apologise, the topic starter has had several suggestions about free (or low cost) collaging aids already, and if a thread encourages discussion about other forms of expression then so much the better..

Ok, so you're not lazy in the sense that you actually have to do something to get imagery, and I can well understanding the frustration involved in getting a desired result (and I do actually read some of the AI themed threads). But if you're comparing what's involved in using Photoshop for collage, as opposed to using AI to get pictures, then I think you should give collaging a try. In fact I'd encourage you to do, and even help if need be.

As for your comment about photography and using programs like Photoshop (and presumably doing rendering too), they basically require the user to have some hand and eye coordination to create something visual, and more importantly their own imagination and manual skill to produce it. Which needless to say, is a wee bit more involved than coaxing a computer program to make pictures with text prompts, but I'm sure you know that already.

It's not a case of being afraid of change, as I don't recognise AI art as being real art anyway. But at the same time, I don't blame folks for experimenting with these toys because it's a fun thing to do. And who knows, it might actually encourage them to get creative on their own merit.

[eddiegiantman]

I've been using Bing AI and just tried Imagine With Meta:

*Bing*
Pros: A bit more consistent with understanding size prompts, can make some interesting particle effects.
Cons: Has "credits" that allow for faster generation, then slows to a crawl once they're used up. "Photorealistic" quality is nice but still mosly fake-looking and can dip in quality if request gets too outlandish.

*Meta*
Pros: No credits, infinite usage that generates in about 10 seconds every time. "Photorealistic" (aside from usual risk of face smudge and extra limbs) is *gorgeous*.
Cons: Takes a lot of wrangling to get anything close enough, size prompts work more for environment than subject (ie, "tiny shrinking woman" won't cut it).

Here are some examples from Bing and Meta, respectively with roughly the same prompt:

See, I dunno how to pull these off without wasting free credits. And some are strict with their generators, like foreverlurk had this issue.

[foreverlurk]

Ok, so you're not lazy in the sense that you actually have to do something to get imagery, and I can well understanding the frustration involved in getting a desired result (and I do actually read some of the AI themed threads). But if you're comparing what's involved in using Photoshop for collage, as opposed to using AI to get pictures, then I think you should give collaging a try. In fact I'd encourage you to do, and even help if need be.

As for your comment about photography and using programs like Photoshop (and presumably doing rendering too), they basically require the user to have some hand and eye coordination to create something visual, and more importantly their own imagination and manual skill to produce it. Which needless to say, is a wee bit more involved than coaxing a computer program to make pictures with text prompts, but I'm sure you know that already.

It's not a case of being afraid of change, as I don't recognise AI art as being real art anyway. But at the same time, I don't blame folks for experimenting with these toys because it's a fun thing to do. And who knows, it might actually encourage them to get creative on their own merit.

I don't think AI is producing "Art", either, but I'm not sure I agree with some of your definition of art (ie. requiring manual skills). And while I'm not the one rendering the output, I still have to use my imagination and creativity to craft my prompts, and I do want as much details as possible to give the AI enough context to render what I want. I also need knowledge of camera angles and lens, perspective, etc. that requires basic composition knowledge. Photography is a good analogy - anyone can take a picture, but few possess the skills to elevate it to an artistic piece (again, I'm reminded of the backlash digital photographers faced in their early years, as some gatekeepers said that only analog film was "worthy").

In my teenage years I was part of the demoscene. We created real-time audio-visual presentations ("demos") through code and maths, meant to be executed on early 00s hardware. The textures were generated with fractals, the objects through vector maths, we implemented our own engine for 3D rendering. There was no manual skill involved, only a blend of maths, C++ code, design and music. Yet, for me it's a 100% valid art form, whether the programmers had good hand eye coordination or not.

Here's one of my favorites demos of all time, Chaos Theory by Conspiracy. It's 64 kilobytes(!!!) in size:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MAnhcUNHRW0

I lack the artistic talent to create visuals that AI and maths/code give me access to. I wish I could paint or draw, but I know myself and my limits. Then again, art is not a null sum - I'm not **taking** something away from real artists with what I do, especially not in the "niche within a niche" that is SW. For the record I'm a decent collager, as I do need to fix a lot of garbage in the AI's rendering. I'd say 75% of what I create require some sort of fix, somtimes heavy editing. But I'll gladly accept your help if you want to help me get better!

[Little Sally]

I don't think AI is producing "Art", either, but I'm not sure I agree with some of your definition of art (ie. requiring manual skills). And while I'm not the one rendering the output, I still have to use my imagination and creativity to craft my prompts, and I do want as much details as possible to give the AI enough context to render what I want. I also need knowledge of camera angles and lens, perspective, etc. that requires basic composition knowledge. Photography is a good analogy - anyone can take a picture, but few possess the skills to elevate it to an artistic piece (again, I'm reminded of the backlash digital photographers faced in their early years, as some gatekeepers said that only analog film was "worthy").

Hey, we can always agree to disagree what constitutes creating art, that's never a problem with me, and I don't doubt that you possess the knowledge (or eye) to appreciate what makes an attractive image. That's half the battle isn't it. And I do agree about photography, having been a bit of an amateur purist when I was younger. When I'd only use slide film in favour of prints, so as to get exactly the end result I was intending (good or bad). Though I'm a digital convert by now of course. But yes, anyone can take a photograph, but the better users actually think about what they're framing in the viewfinder. Which could also be said about creating collages I suppose, some of which can be a bit lacking in thought (not to mention technique).

In my teenage years I was part of the demoscene. We created real-time audio-visual presentations ("demos") through code and maths, meant to be executed on early 00s hardware. The textures were generated with fractals, the objects through vector maths, we implemented our own engine for 3D rendering. There was no manual skill involved, only a blend of maths, C++ code, design and music. Yet, for me it's a 100% valid art form, whether the programmers had good hand eye coordination or not.

Here's one of my favorites demos of all time, Chaos Theory by Conspiracy. It's 64 kilobytes(!!!) in size:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MAnhcUNHRW0

Yes, I take on board your points there, though you lose me with some of the technicalities involved. I do like the result you offer however, which appeals to my arty sci-fi side. Quite dramatic and well constructed it was and the music was good too. I'm not a complete Luddite when it comes to digital stuff, and I enjoy CGI effects in movies and readily accept them as improvements in the genre (when neccessary).

I lack the artistic talent to create visuals that AI and maths/code give me access to. I wish I could paint or draw, but I know myself and my limits. Then again, art is not a null sum - I'm not **taking** something away from real artists with what I do, especially not in the "niche within a niche" that is SW. For the record I'm a decent collager, as I do need to fix a lot of garbage in the AI's rendering. I'd say 75% of what I create require some sort of fix, somtimes heavy editing. But I'll gladly accept your help if you want to help me get better!

I was quite a good drawer and painter at school, but sadly I never pursued it after leaving (much to my Dad's disappointment, who was gifted that way himself). Still, I think I retained enough interest to develop in some other ways later on.

No, I don't consider what's happening on here with AI, to be any threat at all to real artists. It's basically just nerdy folks having some fun creating pictures with the help of their computers (or phones or whatever), so I'm not knocking them for doing that. And a few (like yourself) get more involved with improving the results you're getting, so that's good news. It's also nice to learn you dabble in collage yourself, so if you ever feel like sharing anything (even privately) I'll be interested to see it.

Good to talk.

[Prof Sai]

I agree, and AI (as used on fetish sites like this one) is just a lazy way of creating imagery.

Feh! If it's "lazy" then why does it still take me hours to do a piece?

[Little Sally]

I agree, and AI (as used on fetish sites like this one) is just a lazy way of creating imagery.

Feh! If it's "lazy" then why does it still take me hours to do a piece?

Well, it's obviously because you are a fussy little madam with higher standards than AI can produce! Innit?

[Prof Sai]

If we ask what art is, it seems to me we must also consider why that word exists, and why we feel a need to include some things and exclude others. There are of course important reasons why we do this, but it might help to spell them out exactly.

[foreverlurk]

Hey, we can always agree to disagree what constitutes creating art, that's never a problem with me, and I don't doubt that you possess the knowledge (or eye) to appreciate what makes an attractive image.

Agree to disagree, is very fine by me!

Yes, I take on board your points there, though you lose me with some of the technicalities involved.

Glad you liked it. And yeah, without technical knowledge, I guess some appreciation of this art can be lost. Any programmer seeing this, being told it was created in 2006 and that it runs from a self-contained executable less than 64Kb in size is going to have his mind blown, I guarantee.

It's basically just nerdy folks having some fun creating pictures with the help of their computers

Touché. I didn't mention it, but there IS a side of me that is drawn to the tech itself, large language models and the deep learning algorithms behind it. I can't deny my engineer brain is totally triggered. So it's not JUST about the beautiful, tiny ladies (well, okay, it's like 90-10%)

Always love talking (and derailing threads, obviously!)

[Prof Sai]

there IS a side of me that is drawn to the tech itself, large language models and the deep learning algorithms behind it. I can't deny my engineer brain is totally triggered.

This is exploring and understanding the world. It is inventing new techniques and empowering yourself to do new things.

Honestly, that is more important than art. And any new art form must start with that.

[Prof Sai]

Well, it's obviously because you are a fussy little madam with higher standards than AI can produce! Innit?

Ahhh! This is what it takes to get the stupid AI to render the pose I want. I spent four hours going back and forth between Drawthings and Pixelmator, using each program to modify the output of the other.

[Little Sally]

Well, it's obviously because you are a fussy little madam with higher standards than AI can produce! Innit?

Ahhh! This is what it takes to get the stupid AI to render the pose I want. I spent four hours going back and forth between Drawthings and Pixelmator, using each program to modify the output of the other.

(imagery)

Goodness! Full marks for perseverance!

Our preferences may differ regarding gender and body shape, but your dedication is worthy of respect.

[Little Sally]

It's basically just nerdy folks having some fun creating pictures with the help of their computers

Touché. I didn't mention it, but there IS a side of me that is drawn to the tech itself, large language models and the deep learning algorithms behind it. I can't deny my engineer brain is totally triggered. So it's not JUST about the beautiful, tiny ladies (well, okay, it's like 90-10%)

Always love talking (and derailing threads, obviously!)

Me too, and I think we did the derailment fraternity proud!

It's always a pleasure to discuss with you sir and I look forward to future exchanges. Even if I have to google my way around some self-contained executables!