I was dead wrong about using AI to generate background textures for my digital paintings

I spent years manually painting every single background element because I thought AI would make my work look cheap and lazy. Last month I had a client deadline for a fantasy landscape piece and I was running out of time on the foliage details. A friend convinced me to try generating some base texture layers with an AI tool just to block things in. I figured I'd end up redoing everything anyway. But honestly the output saved me probably 8 hours of work and I just painted over the generated parts to match my style. The final piece actually got complimented for its depth and detail. Has anyone else had a negative opinion about something in digital art turn out to be completely off base once you actually tried it?

2 comments

2 Comments

ross.angela1mo agoMost Upvoted

My friend Mark swore up and down that AI brushes would ruin his painting style, then he used one to create a rocky canyon texture for a commission piece and it turned out so good he ended up using the whole thing as the base for his final layer. He now says it freed up his time to actually focus on the stuff he's good at, like lighting and composition.

mia_lee1mo ago

Heard someone on a podcast say that tools like this are just modern versions of what painters have always done, like switching from hog hair brushes to synthetics. Your friend's story proves it's not about losing your style, it's about choosing what to spend your energy on. The whole "it's cheating" argument falls apart when you see the final product actually looks better because the artist used their skills where they matter most. I bet a lot of the artists fighting against this stuff have never given it a real shot with an open mind.