"TBH, the biggest threat to Adobe - and the people who are employed to use it - is all the "AI" photo enhancement stuff which is now being freely offered on mobile phone photo apps and the like."
For bloggers and unrepentant selfie producers, yep, they'll use the wizardry on their phone. Professionals need much finer control over what changes are being made to a photo. Content-Aware Fill in Photoshop can be brilliant sometimes, other times it's a dog's breakfast. If that's your only tool, you aren't delivering the photo your customer is going to be happy paying you for. Photography is way too subjective (non-news) for AI to be useful all of the time. For a photographer, editing/post production is as much of the process as capturing the photo in the first place. For some, the captured image is just the starting point.
When I freelanced for Reuters, any enhancement, even shooting in RAW and converting to .jpg was verboten. They make an exception if one got a photo of something very newsworthy such as a plane crash and there were no other photos on the RAW conversion. They might still buck against an AI enhanced image. The last thing they want is an allegation that a photo they are supplying has been altered in a way that changes reality.
Biting the hand that feeds IT
