pvdhaar
Peter
And then there's someone who's apparantly caught Samsung to detect a moon in a photo and replace it with a hi-res version: Are Samsung’s Phones Fudging It on Moon Photography?
GMOG
Established
Have any of you tried your hand at AI image creation? It's not so easy, and finding information on how to create realistic looking images is tough.
Yesterday I signed up to use DALL-E 2. It's based on credits, and you get 50 for free when you sign up, which is more than enough to fool around with it for an afternoon. I tried a variety of prompts, including many details like camera and lens used, the shot parameters, lighting, etc. and I get images that looking nothing like realistic photographs. More like paintings. I wonder if people are starting with "real" digital images and then using the AI to manipulate them from there.
Part of the challenge with DALL-E 2 is that you are only working with a 1024 x 1024 image space for each generation. If you want to make a larger image you can, but it involves piecing together as many of those 1024 x 1024 squares as is needed, and you still only work with each 1024x1024 square individually. I have not tried that yet, but I can imagine the process of creating a large image becoming quite complex. I've developed a greater respect for what it takes to produce high quality images using this particular tool.
I prompted DALL-E 2 to give me an image of a man sitting at a desk littered with papers, in a library, circa 1900. The best I got from the first generation was this robot looking guy:
I spent time refining the prompt, making edits to select areas of the image, and got this:
My next experiment will involve starting with some of my own photographs.
Yesterday I signed up to use DALL-E 2. It's based on credits, and you get 50 for free when you sign up, which is more than enough to fool around with it for an afternoon. I tried a variety of prompts, including many details like camera and lens used, the shot parameters, lighting, etc. and I get images that looking nothing like realistic photographs. More like paintings. I wonder if people are starting with "real" digital images and then using the AI to manipulate them from there.
Part of the challenge with DALL-E 2 is that you are only working with a 1024 x 1024 image space for each generation. If you want to make a larger image you can, but it involves piecing together as many of those 1024 x 1024 squares as is needed, and you still only work with each 1024x1024 square individually. I have not tried that yet, but I can imagine the process of creating a large image becoming quite complex. I've developed a greater respect for what it takes to produce high quality images using this particular tool.
I prompted DALL-E 2 to give me an image of a man sitting at a desk littered with papers, in a library, circa 1900. The best I got from the first generation was this robot looking guy:
I spent time refining the prompt, making edits to select areas of the image, and got this:
My next experiment will involve starting with some of my own photographs.
Last edited:
GMOG
Established
Such as?
The metaverse exists already, a creation of our pal Zuckerberg. I've read several articles about it, and I've seen some 2D videos showing what it looks like now. The graphics are crude, but that will change, and I'm sure AI will be part of what's used to come up with how it and the "people" in it appear. I see the metaverse as an extension of the social and other media bubbles that many people are living in now.
Last edited:
GMOG
Established
I believe that the commercial photographers who are good at photographing hamburgers might care more about this. Food photography is a lot of work, and requires a fair amount of skill and knowledge. It seems realistic to assume that more than a few hamburger photographers will be seeing less work in the future.
Out to Lunch
Menteur
True. So will many other product photographers because it's a dying business. Cheers, OtL
Last edited:
GMOG
Established
Well, I'm not a food photographer, but I do sympathize with them.
GMOG
Established
I have worked as a commercial product photographer, both in studio as a full time employee and also freelance. I still do a little of this work when it comes my way, but I can see that those opportunities are going to be fewer in the future. The death of this kind of photography means I will have one less stream of income. So yeah, I feel the pain in my own way.
lukitas
second hand noob
When I was 5, I saw how they resurfaced the street in front of our house. 25 burly men, yelling insults at each other.
Couple of years ago, the same job was done in front of my current door : 3 men with big machines, and one of them was the overseer.
In the interval, we greedily adopted all the labour-saving devices. Great! Wonderful! No more sweat! Anyone can do it! We don't need no stinkin' professionals.
But what happened to the 22 other guys? No use for them no more?
I started working in the print and publishing business in the 80ies. A small army of skilled jobs was required : typographers, colour engravers, etc. Where are they now? I saw my colleagues losing their jobs, I saw businesses going bust, I saw photographers losing revenue. "I can make just as nice a picture on my smart-device, why would i pay an expensive idiot with a Hasselblad and a Sinar? I know one homeless person who lost the plot when he lost his job at a 1-hour photo-lab.
Again, we greedily adopted all the labour saving devices: Photoshop, QuarkXpress, Indesign... Great, Wonderful, No more sweat, Anyone can do it. We don't need no stinkin' professionals.
And now we're getting all exited over Ai 'art' and chatbot 'writing'. Great, Wonderful, No more sweat, Anyone can do it. We don't need no stinkin' professionals.
Why are we so bloody happy about sawing off the branch we're sitting on?
Couple of years ago, the same job was done in front of my current door : 3 men with big machines, and one of them was the overseer.
In the interval, we greedily adopted all the labour-saving devices. Great! Wonderful! No more sweat! Anyone can do it! We don't need no stinkin' professionals.
But what happened to the 22 other guys? No use for them no more?
I started working in the print and publishing business in the 80ies. A small army of skilled jobs was required : typographers, colour engravers, etc. Where are they now? I saw my colleagues losing their jobs, I saw businesses going bust, I saw photographers losing revenue. "I can make just as nice a picture on my smart-device, why would i pay an expensive idiot with a Hasselblad and a Sinar? I know one homeless person who lost the plot when he lost his job at a 1-hour photo-lab.
Again, we greedily adopted all the labour saving devices: Photoshop, QuarkXpress, Indesign... Great, Wonderful, No more sweat, Anyone can do it. We don't need no stinkin' professionals.
And now we're getting all exited over Ai 'art' and chatbot 'writing'. Great, Wonderful, No more sweat, Anyone can do it. We don't need no stinkin' professionals.
Why are we so bloody happy about sawing off the branch we're sitting on?
raydm6
Yay! Cameras! 🙈🙉🙊┌( ಠ_ಠ)┘ [◉"]
Unfortunately, displacement is going to occur with new technological advances. However, these new technologies also create new industries and career opportunities. So the question becomes, how does one traverse (if possible) this displacement if one is affected?
So far, I have ridden the tech wave and have stayed abreast of changes in my career field (30+ years in hi-tech). I feel fortunate I am not a dinosaur yet and not quite ready for pasture
Interesting study by McKinsey:
www.mckinsey.com
So far, I have ridden the tech wave and have stayed abreast of changes in my career field (30+ years in hi-tech). I feel fortunate I am not a dinosaur yet and not quite ready for pasture
Interesting study by McKinsey:
Jobs lost, jobs gained: What the future of work will mean for jobs, skills, and wages
In an era marked by rapid advances in automation and artificial intelligence, new research assesses the jobs lost and jobs gained under different scenarios through 2030.
Rayt
Nonplayer Character
Walking around my San Francisco neighborhood we still have wooden poles that carry telephone and power lines whereas many developing countries not burdened by legacy tech have always put them underground from the start. Same with mobile phones having skipped landlines completely. Some countries will fare better than others and we can guess which ones.Unfortunately, displacement is going to occur with new technological advances. However, these new technologies also create new industries and career opportunities. So the question becomes, how does one traverse (if possible) this displacement if one is affected?
So far, I have ridden the tech wave and have stayed abreast of changes in my career field (30+ years in hi-tech). I feel fortunate I am not a dinosaur yet and not quite ready for pasture
Interesting study by McKinsey:
Jobs lost, jobs gained: What the future of work will mean for jobs, skills, and wages
In an era marked by rapid advances in automation and artificial intelligence, new research assesses the jobs lost and jobs gained under different scenarios through 2030.
Right, so it isn't photography. It is its own thing. The thread is about if photography is dying. I would think only a certain kind.
Bill Clark
Mentor
Event photography, including portraits, can still be viable for a pro photographer. What I see is self confidence by some photographers, as they sometimes use the machine gun approach using a smart device like a phone, hoping a few will turn out but usually end up with snap shots. Some cannot see the difference.
More photographs are being made today than in any time. Digital and the internet helped. Some apps available that look to be interesting.
More photographs are being made today than in any time. Digital and the internet helped. Some apps available that look to be interesting.
Last edited:
Dogman
Mentor
Time to go back and re-read Vonnegut's Player Piano.
robert blu
quiet photographer
or everyone believes to be a photographer these days
das
Well-known
AI will certainly replace mostly aspects of commercial photography. Photography maybe will mean something when we are forced to determine what is real and what is not. I think the real danger is when AI manipulates politics, criminal investigations / prosecutions, etc., leaving people wondering what is real or not. What will keep a political opponent from faking a speech you never made? Or an overzealous cop or defense attorney from fabricating digital evidence of guilt or innocence? We trust that we will always be able to tell reality from illusions via "experts" or whatever, but when people start doubting whether everyday digital images / videos are "real," we are going to be in trouble.
I think this is already happening... and without AI!
x-ray
Mentor
The two ad agencies I was on staff with had resident illustrators. They did incredible illustrations with airbrush, pencil and ink. AI just makes it easier. Anyway etchings, pencil and pen illustrations and line drawings have been used for more than a century. What’s the difference and what’s the difference if I use a chef and stylist to prepare a shot with actual product vs a synthesized image. It makes absolutely no difference. It’s nothing more than a representation of what you’d buy if you buy it.
As far as synthesizing a voice to do a hatchet job on a politician, corporate head or you or me, it’s being done through selective editing of video and sound tracks. This has been done by news agencies, extortionists and such since editing of audio and video / film came into existence. If you want a few examples I have them but don’t want to start a war.
AI will just make things easier and at some point you’ll have an Adobe program on your computer and you’ll be generating AI pictures, paintings, audio and video. It’s not new, it’s just in the evolutionary stage just like when Photoshop came out.
I’m so glad I’m retired because the end of commercial photography is coming. Personal photography by individuals will be here for a long time. AI won’t replace portraits of little Susie and won’t replace wedding photography so those folks are here for a while.
justins7
Well-known
raydm6
The whole "Jobs lost, jobs gained" argument has been proven to be false after decades now of hearing this. It's an argument made by capitalism to legitimize itself and also make people feel like they're not luddites.I have worked in commercial print and digital design for 30 years and have seen all of these jobs vaporize — and never once saw the "jobs gained". All of those printers or film-strippers or type-setters either became waiters or faded from the world completely. The only jobs gained are at the very top (Adobe, Google, etc.) or on the bottom. Ironically the only jobs that were ever stable are blue-collar, like plumbers, welders and electricians.
This gets proven year after year. Just saying "unfortunately, this is how it is" is the reason we just keep marching off the edge of a cliff. It's contributed to our current state of populism/authoritarianism, as well as depression, suicide, drug and alcohol abuse, etc., in my view, since what made us human before — agency, creativity, DIY — has been/is being eliminated.
We are on an inexorable march towards total automation of human creation. CG is indeed already coming for Hollywood (reboots of Raiders of the Lost Ark using faked Harrison Ford, for example); it's only a matter of time before actors are fully replaced. There are fewer movie stars than ever. Porn is already becoming AI.
And music? Most new pop music is automated, or semi-automated, with Autotune, etc. There are literally no rock stars anymore. Most photographers I know are already semi- or fully-unemployed already.
This is simply becoming a world where human endeavors are becoming "irrelevant," and all of the arts — like photography, art and music — are just side hobbies. No wonder culture is in such a low place now, and many or most people just look to the past. Dystopian indeed. Glad I am not a young person.
Gordon Moat
Established
Depends upon the cost really. I can see some ad agencies going this direction, because it keeps production even more in-house. There’s still editing and post-production to get really good results. We’ve all seen the fast and bad, or funny, AI generated content. I would lump the process in with Photo Illustration, and I’m glad I started my creative profession as an illustrator. Editing and drawing skills will become more important. Camera gear will become less important. Freelance photographers will need image libraries that they can plug into AI, so they can avoid copyright issues. I suppose that’s a bit like stock photography, though when Getty and Corbis go full AI, it’s going to be rough.
Coldkennels
Barnack-toting Brit.
This whole thing is so damned depressing - but ultimately we should have seen it coming.
From an artistic perspective, photography has been going down a dark path of "make this as easy as possible" for a long time. Everyone has their own jumping-off point; I'm sure people complained that those who eschewed wet plate in favour of that simple roll film stuff were not "proper photographers". Then you got the Brownie taking the developing and printing away from people. Then more and more "automatic" shooting setups, whether it's coupled rangefinders, auto-exposure, auto-focus, and so on. Then digital photography meant you didn't even need to handle film any more. Eventually it became tap the screen on an iPhone and wow, you've got a "photo". "AI Art" is the inevitable conclusion; when the craft and the process is endlessly diminished, eventually you're going to reach a point where the human pressing the button is the last thing to automate.
I'd like to think people would still appreciate the work and craft behind a traditional wet print made from a film negative, but if I were selling inkjet prints made from digital files, I might be sweating a bit.
As for the job issue... that's even more depressing. Economists, philosophers and theorists of the late 1800s and early 1900s saw mechanisation and automation as a net good for humanity; they predicted that the increase of productivity would mean we'd be able to work fewer hours and have a higher quality of life. Instead, the profits that should have been used in this way were siphoned off to the business owners and CEOs, and the poor people were left scrambling for lower-quality jobs with stagnating pay. And instead of fully automating the most mundane of jobs as expected/predicted, the capitalist/ruling class are automating the artistic pursuits that bring us joy, keeping everyone else cleaning toilets and stacking shelves.
We were robbed. And I don't know why more people aren't angry about that.
From an artistic perspective, photography has been going down a dark path of "make this as easy as possible" for a long time. Everyone has their own jumping-off point; I'm sure people complained that those who eschewed wet plate in favour of that simple roll film stuff were not "proper photographers". Then you got the Brownie taking the developing and printing away from people. Then more and more "automatic" shooting setups, whether it's coupled rangefinders, auto-exposure, auto-focus, and so on. Then digital photography meant you didn't even need to handle film any more. Eventually it became tap the screen on an iPhone and wow, you've got a "photo". "AI Art" is the inevitable conclusion; when the craft and the process is endlessly diminished, eventually you're going to reach a point where the human pressing the button is the last thing to automate.
I'd like to think people would still appreciate the work and craft behind a traditional wet print made from a film negative, but if I were selling inkjet prints made from digital files, I might be sweating a bit.
As for the job issue... that's even more depressing. Economists, philosophers and theorists of the late 1800s and early 1900s saw mechanisation and automation as a net good for humanity; they predicted that the increase of productivity would mean we'd be able to work fewer hours and have a higher quality of life. Instead, the profits that should have been used in this way were siphoned off to the business owners and CEOs, and the poor people were left scrambling for lower-quality jobs with stagnating pay. And instead of fully automating the most mundane of jobs as expected/predicted, the capitalist/ruling class are automating the artistic pursuits that bring us joy, keeping everyone else cleaning toilets and stacking shelves.
We were robbed. And I don't know why more people aren't angry about that.
Last edited by a moderator: