Retro-Grouch
Well-known
No, it emphatically is not. First, let me say that I find Photo-Realist painting tedious and uninteresting, another blip in the self-referential bubble of academic thought and art. However, during its moment (long past), Photo-Realism's intent was to interrogate (another popular word in academia) processes of representation, and to examine the influence of photography on painting, and image making in general, in contemporary society. One has to question whether painting was the ideal visual format within which to conduct that line of questioning, but painting has status and prestige, and the art world needs new objects and movements to sell. I do respect the original artists' attempt to explore questions of visual representation, but Photo-Realism immediately became another stylistic art world fad, divorced from the serious intent of the movement's originators.
On the other hand, paintings-by-numbers and paintings by cats are immortal. Purchase wisely!
justins7
Well-known
dct
perpetual amateur
In any case, what you get at the counter will not look like the one on the picture
ranger9
Well-known
So did everyone notice the announcement Wednesday that Adobe will be building its Firefly AI tech into its products, starting with Photoshop and Illustrator? Having the technology available in tools we already know will make generative AI a lot more acceptable to photographers, I suspect: "Get a cool AI fantasy background for your senior photo/engagement shoot/pet portrait. Exclusive at our studio!" (at least until all your competitors download it.)
If this, or anything, kills off photography, though, it won't have anything to do with how photographers handle it, and everything to do with how it changes the way people perceive and use images.
As Maya Angelou said: "People will forget what you said, people will forget what you did, but people will never forget how you made them feel." People are no longer interested in images of what they did; they've already forgotten that. They want images that portray how they feel. For a long time, photography has been the most accessible tool for doing that – but with generative AI available to everyone, photography will become an unnecessary intermediate step. The ability to generate an appealing image by typing "me and my BFF wearing cute outfits and hugging in our favorite coffee shop" would obsolete 99% of the photo content on Instagram.
I am living this reality right now. I do documentary photo projects on artists and their activities, and there used to be a steady demand for imagery from those pictured, who wanted to have mementos of how they spent their time doing something they cared about. Now, as the artist demographic becomes younger, this demand has entirely dropped off; what people want are not realistic mementos of their activities, but carefully curated photo sets depicting real or aspirational relationships. I still do it because I enjoy doing it (and out of habit) but nobody else attaches any value to it, so from a social utility perspective it's a complete waste of time... a reality that eventually is going to wear me down and I'll stop. So will you, I'll bet, unless you really enjoy the gear-manipulation aspect of photography...
If this, or anything, kills off photography, though, it won't have anything to do with how photographers handle it, and everything to do with how it changes the way people perceive and use images.
As Maya Angelou said: "People will forget what you said, people will forget what you did, but people will never forget how you made them feel." People are no longer interested in images of what they did; they've already forgotten that. They want images that portray how they feel. For a long time, photography has been the most accessible tool for doing that – but with generative AI available to everyone, photography will become an unnecessary intermediate step. The ability to generate an appealing image by typing "me and my BFF wearing cute outfits and hugging in our favorite coffee shop" would obsolete 99% of the photo content on Instagram.
I am living this reality right now. I do documentary photo projects on artists and their activities, and there used to be a steady demand for imagery from those pictured, who wanted to have mementos of how they spent their time doing something they cared about. Now, as the artist demographic becomes younger, this demand has entirely dropped off; what people want are not realistic mementos of their activities, but carefully curated photo sets depicting real or aspirational relationships. I still do it because I enjoy doing it (and out of habit) but nobody else attaches any value to it, so from a social utility perspective it's a complete waste of time... a reality that eventually is going to wear me down and I'll stop. So will you, I'll bet, unless you really enjoy the gear-manipulation aspect of photography...
I still have a physical camera with a viewfinder and the reality of the outdoors to work with. I really enjoy putting a framing device around reality and clicking the shutter. I am not sure how AI can replicate that experience or the photography I like looking at either. I'm not into fantasy though, so that might be the answer... since it seems AI is really appealing to one´s sense of fantasy.
hap
Well-known
For some that will be a perfect paramour/friend/confidant/and financial planner......wrecking everything.
Out to Lunch
Menteur
dct
perpetual amateur
Support this. For me, the journey is its own reward in different topics. Photography is one of those. I don't see me as an artist and I photograph just as hobby.
For my simple personal workflow image manipulation was never an important aspect. Hence this AI thing touches me because of the worldwide social impact it will have.
Retro-Grouch
Well-known
As a film photographer, my choice to use that process has for some time been regarded as quaint, curious, perhaps foolish, but a bit fascinating to those who don't share my choice. Perhaps soon, all photography that isn't "synthography" will be regarded that way.
raydm6
Yay! Cameras! 🙈🙉🙊┌( ಠ_ಠ)┘ [◉"]
Saw this AI-related service referenced on another forum:
www.headshotpro.com
HeadshotPro: Professional corporate headshots for remote teams.
Professional corporate headshots made easy! Upload photos, pick style & receive 120+ generated headshots. Perfect for you or your team.
Out to Lunch
Menteur
I friend of mine sells houses for a living and he has completely switched to AI-generated photos to support his business. Apparently, this approach is not without risk: if and when you 'enhance' photos to the above-mentioned 'hamburger' reality, you might get sued. Cheers, OtL
Last edited:
Yokosuka_Mike
Abstract Clarity
I haven't been following this thread very closely. Every time I read a few posts it makes my head hurt. It’s not that the poster’s who are posting are so bad, many are quite clever and informative, it’s just that a post titled “Is photography dying?” is enough to make my eyes glaze over and then I think that I’m dying. Ugh. What else isn’t dying?
I like photography, I like it a lot; as a retiree it’s a big part of my life. Much of my day often revolves around photography. So, if somebody thinks that photography is dying, that’s their problem, not mine. As far as I’m concerned photography is alive and well! At least until I die, then I won’t give a damn anymore.
Anyway, everyone else was posting here so I thought I would too. Carry on.
Mike
I like photography, I like it a lot; as a retiree it’s a big part of my life. Much of my day often revolves around photography. So, if somebody thinks that photography is dying, that’s their problem, not mine. As far as I’m concerned photography is alive and well! At least until I die, then I won’t give a damn anymore.
Anyway, everyone else was posting here so I thought I would too. Carry on.
Mike
Out to Lunch
Menteur
Thanks for stating the obvious: for amateur photographers, there is not a cloud in the sky. For commercial photographers, however, AI technology is a game changer. It's not just an issue of jobs 'disappearing'. Instead, it's an issue of jobs in the 'artistic sector' moving from the Northern Hemisphere to the Southern Hemisphere, which results in a spectacular decline in jobs in that sector in North America, matched by a spectacular rise in jobs in the same sector in South East Asia. Cheers. OtL
Harry the K
Established
Just because you´re dead you won´t give a damn anymore? You´re not very reliable, are you?
An article from Aperture regarding artists using AI:
aperture.org
How Will AI Transform Photography?
As artists experiment with this fast-evolving technology, they uncover creative opportunity, absurdity, and bias.
aperture.org
Just shoot more Polaroid. The favorite camera that gets brought to my Daughter's youth group. And at work- the only Camera that my Boss would believe was not computer-generated by me, decades ago.
Just wait until the counter-culture wants all Polaroid Pictures at Weddings and other special events. opportunity being Created. Pick up an SLR680 and SX-70 Sonar while you can, get a 119a tele-photo lens for the latter.
Just wait until the counter-culture wants all Polaroid Pictures at Weddings and other special events. opportunity being Created. Pick up an SLR680 and SX-70 Sonar while you can, get a 119a tele-photo lens for the latter.
JeffS7444
Well-known
The future doesn’t always unfold the way pundits would have us believe, and so-called Artificial Intelligence just happens to be trending as the shiniest new toy of the moment, while the rumored Apple Car and “Internet of Things” of years past seem almost quaint now. Metaverse? A niche thing destined to remain niche, I think.
Synthesized imagery has been a thing for some time, but Apple’s product imagery and IKEA’s interiors and digital influencers require skilled humans.
Synthesized imagery has been a thing for some time, but Apple’s product imagery and IKEA’s interiors and digital influencers require skilled humans.
Ko.Fe.
Lenses 35/21 Gears 46/20
This one could stay for a while. Because it makes sense to pay less if none for generic, formal, just has to be images.
From history of photography as image providing service, it is moving towards advanced technology and removing those who are nothing but trade skilled workers.
Those trade and only skilled workers were as much as 99 % of so called Pro in film era. All they needed to know was technicalities of getting image on film. And it was enough for income. While all of them were not gifted as photographers.
Those were replaced by so called Pro with digital, but again, not gifted photogs, just taking technically correct exposures and post processing them properly.
Now those are going to be booted by computer generated images.
And only those who could deliver image with personality will stay in business.
ranger9
Well-known
People will keep doing photography as long as they enjoy it... but I think photography itself is about to disappear as a subject of public interest, and it will take less time than we think.
This wouldn't be unprecedented. Have you ever heard of Currier & Ives? This was an American firm founded in 1835 to do business in lithography, a method for making and selling fine-art prints in large quantities. C&I (and many competitors) turned out prints for every taste and interest: current events, sporting scenes, animals, patriotic and comic topics, etc. There was a huge demand for them, and no middle-class home was complete without a few framed lithographs on display to reflect the tastes and interests of the householders.
But... during the 1890s, publishers developed the technique of making photomechanical halftones, which simulated the tones of a photograph at large scale and low cost. Suddenly people were less interested in looking at lithographs and more interested in looking at photo reproductions. Over its last 15 years, Currier & Ives' business crashed, and the company was liquidated in 1907.
Funny thing, though... lithographs themselves didn't go away. People kept making them as a means of personal expression, and still make them. The difference is that nobody is interested in looking at them. (When was the last time YOU looked at a lithograph, or talked about a lithography show with friends?) Lithography lives on solely because people want to do it, without worrying about whether it will make them well-known or influential.
I think that between the commoditization of photo imagery spawned by Instagram et al, and the rapid rise of generative AI systems, we're quickly approaching the same status for photography. People may still want to do it, but the public at large will lose interest in looking at it. Why be interested in a photo of anything when instead you can just type in some text prompts and choose from dozens of variations?
As photographers, I think we'll need to learn how to be like Eugene Atget or Vivian Maier, people who worked solely for their own approval. (Yes, Atget made some money selling prints to artists as the basis for paintings, but he had to be aspiring to more than that.)
Diane Arbus famously said "I photograph for myself, and strangers."Are we ready to keep going after the strangers are gone?
This wouldn't be unprecedented. Have you ever heard of Currier & Ives? This was an American firm founded in 1835 to do business in lithography, a method for making and selling fine-art prints in large quantities. C&I (and many competitors) turned out prints for every taste and interest: current events, sporting scenes, animals, patriotic and comic topics, etc. There was a huge demand for them, and no middle-class home was complete without a few framed lithographs on display to reflect the tastes and interests of the householders.
But... during the 1890s, publishers developed the technique of making photomechanical halftones, which simulated the tones of a photograph at large scale and low cost. Suddenly people were less interested in looking at lithographs and more interested in looking at photo reproductions. Over its last 15 years, Currier & Ives' business crashed, and the company was liquidated in 1907.
Funny thing, though... lithographs themselves didn't go away. People kept making them as a means of personal expression, and still make them. The difference is that nobody is interested in looking at them. (When was the last time YOU looked at a lithograph, or talked about a lithography show with friends?) Lithography lives on solely because people want to do it, without worrying about whether it will make them well-known or influential.
I think that between the commoditization of photo imagery spawned by Instagram et al, and the rapid rise of generative AI systems, we're quickly approaching the same status for photography. People may still want to do it, but the public at large will lose interest in looking at it. Why be interested in a photo of anything when instead you can just type in some text prompts and choose from dozens of variations?
As photographers, I think we'll need to learn how to be like Eugene Atget or Vivian Maier, people who worked solely for their own approval. (Yes, Atget made some money selling prints to artists as the basis for paintings, but he had to be aspiring to more than that.)
Diane Arbus famously said "I photograph for myself, and strangers."Are we ready to keep going after the strangers are gone?
JeffS7444
Well-known
Corrected it for you. We don’t know how quickly those AI companies are burning through cash reserves. Some are probably hoping for a big buyout.