Okay, so I’ve been messing around with this “negative surge” thing in image generation, and let me tell you, it’s been a wild ride. I wanted to share my experience, from the very beginning to where I’m at now, so here we go.
It all started when I was trying to get a specific style in my images, you know? I kept getting these weird artifacts, mushy details, and just… blah results. Someone on a forum mentioned using a negative prompt, and embedding to address similar quality issues. I had tinkered with negative prompts before, but not in a serious way, and I didn’t know the first thing about embeddings. I was curious about how this “negative surge” method could improve things.
Diving In Headfirst
First, I needed to figure out what the heck I was doing. So, I started digging. I spent hours reading forum posts, blog entries, and watching any video I could find. I learned that negative prompts tell the AI what not to include, which I kinda already knew, and I was able to locate some negative embedding files from the usual online resources.
I downloaded a popular negative embedding, something everyone seemed to recommend. I won’t name names, you know, just in case things change. But it was one of the top-rated ones.
My First Attempts (and Epic Fails)
My initial attempts were… not great. I threw the embedding into my usual setup, slapped in a basic negative prompt like “blurry, ugly, deformed,” and hit generate. The results? Still pretty bad. Maybe even worse! It felt like I was going backward.
I realized I was treating it too simply. I needed to be more specific. So, I started experimenting with different combinations of:
- Keywords in the negative prompt: Instead of just “blurry,” I tried things like “blurry background, blurry edges, low resolution.” Instead of “deformed,” I went with “extra limbs, mutated hands, bad anatomy.”
- The strength of the negative embedding: I found out I could actually adjust how much influence the embedding had. I played with different settings, going from barely noticeable to super strong.
- My positive prompts: I learned that a good positive prompt is still crucial. I needed to be just as specific about what I did want as what I didn’t want.
The Turning Point
After many, many tries, I started seeing some improvement. The images were getting sharper, the details were crisper, and the overall quality was definitely going up. It was like magic! The artifacts I was getting at the very beginning were no longer a problem.
One thing I figured out was that the “negative surge” idea – basically, cranking up the negative embedding’s influence – really did work, but only to a point. Too much, and things started looking weird again, just in a different way. It was all about finding that sweet spot.
My Current Workflow
Now, I have a pretty good system. I use a combination of:
- A good negative embedding.
- A carefully crafted negative prompt, tailored to the specific image I’m generating.
- A well-defined positive prompt.
- A balanced strength setting for the negative embedding. Usually, I start in the middle and adjust from there.
It’s still not perfect. I still get some duds, and I’m always learning new tricks. But the “negative surge” method has definitely been a game-changer for me. It’s taken my images from “meh” to “wow” (most of the time, anyway!). I hope you can learn from my mistakes, and get great looking images. Good luck!
