First off pictures have not always lied.
Well, back in that era most of the photographs made were snapshots of stuff like Aunt Clara and Uncle Fred standing in front of Niagara Falls. Yep, that Clara and Fred on their trip to Buffalo.
However, I find that those old photos reveal a different truth when compared to the snapshots of today and that is that back in the 20th century people were thinner. Taking the same photos today from the same position requires a wide angle lens.
Niépce's photographic experiments were first aimed at copying other artworks without needing an artist. (I said "photos" specifically, btw)
View attachment 339780
Well people today are fatter. The camera never lies.
It offers the ability to create images from prompts, therefore scenes that might not either exist or could be difficult to photograph. There has always been a market for surrealist and fantasy art. The big menace is people tend to put faith in what they see in a photographic image and AI can easily produce images of events or situations that never happened. So news or other informative images are becoming doubtful as to their veracity. Right now, any new image I see online makes me think, was that generated by AI?I am a VERY Low-Tech person.
So pardon my ignorance, but what is the purpose of AI art.?
I am assuming it is for commercial, advertising enterprise.?
Would people pay money for this like they would with work from a painter or photographer in an art gallery.?
It offers the ability to create images from prompts, therefore scenes that might not either exist or could be difficult to photograph. There has always been a market for surrealist and fantasy art. The big menace is people tend to put faith in what they see in a photographic image and AI can easily produce images of events or situations that never happened. So news or other informative images are becoming doubtful as to their veracity. Right now, any new image I see online makes me think, was that generated by AI?
As far as using AI for commercial purposes, ad imagery has almost always been retouched in some manner. As long as it is a truthful representation of the product, anything else is fair game. Even exaggerated, obviously impossibly over-the-top situations, since the viewer/consumer should be able to tell it is an exaggeration for shock value, extravagance or humor.
I'm not hearing anyone talk about what they want to achieve with their pictures.
Photos have always lied. Get over it. When they tell the truth, what is that truth?
What are you actually afraid of? To what do you aspire? Social media noise?
View attachment 339777
Sirius, in your images people are fatter because you had to compress the vertical image into a square! If you had bought a rectangular format camera instead, you wouldn't need to tilt the enlarger easel. Or just use Rubbermaid brand film.
It offers the ability to create images from prompts, therefore scenes that might not either exist or could be difficult to photograph. There has always been a market for surrealist and fantasy art. The big menace is people tend to put faith in what they see in a photographic image and AI can easily produce images of events or situations that never happened. So news or other informative images are becoming doubtful as to their veracity. Right now, any new image I see online makes me think, was that generated by AI?
As far as using AI for commercial purposes, ad imagery has almost always been retouched in some manner. As long as it is a truthful representation of the product, anything else is fair game. Even exaggerated, obviously impossibly over-the-top situations, since the viewer/consumer should be able to tell it is an exaggeration for shock value, extravagance or humor.
Thank You
Sort of what i thought
While i am a "purist" in my own photo hobby, i see nothing out of bounds with what others do.
As you say, the "truth" in photography has always been manipulated.
In the early 1960s, Tony Armstrong Jones was nailing male models shoes to the floor and suspending female models, from ropes above them.
That simple trick creates a very realistic effect of of physics defying advertisements.
View attachment 339797
But that picture also looks as fake and stiff as it really is. No matter what your photographic philosophy is, a good magician or illusionist should never show his hand. A lab owner friend of mine once showed me an Uelsmann print he had collected, and commented how he had been stuyding that print for years trying to find some evident flaw in it. Yes, it was a totally whimsical mythical scene created using multiple enlargers. Everyone know that fact about Uelsmann. But he did it so well that one couldn't ever catch his trick unless he explained it to you.
Not so today, with everyone doing the same kind of thing clumsily, even given the billions of dollars which have gone into the underlying computerized R&D. Maybe AI will gain the ability to fool us. But the mere fact that much of that imagery will get attached to political ads or propaganda or other deceptive purposes will be a dead giveaway regardless. People willing to be fooled in that manner have long been fooled by far less, and often seemingly willing.
Otherwise, I consider such artificial photography equivalent to visual fast-food or junk food. It doesn't even smell right. Call it something else - not photography, because it isn't.
But people know it is a painting. It is when you can create something realistic and believable as a photograph that can be upsetting and dishonest.Painters have been doing that for many centuries and using their brains to do that.
But people know it is a painting. It is when you can create something realistic and believable as a photograph that can be upsetting and dishonest.
View attachment 339804
Or maybe because not everyone wants to be a painter. Do you want to be a painter?Why not become a real painter instead? - maybe because it takes actual skill,…
But that picture also looks as fake and stiff as it really is. No matter what your photographic philosophy is, a good magician or illusionist should never show his hand. A lab owner friend of mine once showed me an Uelsmann print he had collected, and commented how he had been stuyding that print for years trying to find some evident flaw in it. Yes, it was a totally whimsical mythical scene created using multiple enlargers. Everyone know that fact about Uelsmann. But he did it so well that one couldn't ever catch his trick unless he explained it to you.
Not so today, with everyone doing the same kind of thing clumsily, even given the billions of dollars which have gone into the underlying computerized R&D. Maybe AI will gain the ability to fool us. But the mere fact that much of that imagery will get attached to political ads or propaganda or other deceptive purposes will be a dead giveaway regardless. People willing to be fooled in that manner have long been fooled by far less, and often seemingly willing.
Otherwise, I consider such artificial photography equivalent to visual fast-food or junk food. It doesn't even smell right. Call it something else - not photography, because it isn't.
Everyone's going to have these very fancy, expertly created photos made by Photoshop AI which happen to all look the same.
I don't get the angst. There's no need for it.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?