AI created images vs. Photoshop fabrications. Is there a difference?

[Cholentpot]

A digital image can easily be converted into film, rendering that argument moot.

Easy for you and me. Not easy for the average Joe.

A typewriter can be wired or machined to hook up to the internet. An AI written item can be copied down by hand. Anything is possible. We try to stay within the realm of normalcy.

 

[Pieter12]

Easy for you and me. Not easy for the average Joe.

A typewriter can be wired or machined to hook up to the internet. An AI written item can be copied down by hand. Anything is possible. We try to stay within the realm of normalcy.

Anyone willing to fake evidence can find a way to do it, even if it means having someone else with the proper skills perform the work.

 

[Alex Benjamin]

What's different about AI?

Difference is that, for advertising, to give one example, you have to book a bunch of people, from models to assistant to make-up to photographer, etc. Bunch of people earning a living doing that, Photoshop just being one of the last step in the production line.

With AI, no need for any of that. Whole lot of people going to lose their job.

 

[BradS]

Easy for you and me. Not easy for the average Joe.

A typewriter can be wired or machined to hook up to the internet. An AI written item can be copied down by hand. Anything is possible. We try to stay within the realm of normalcy.

It would be trivial to train an off-the-shelf industrial robot to type on a typewriter or write in cursive.

 

[VinceInMT]

I have family in education….

As a retired teacher, and glad that I am retired during these days, I’m interested in the classroom ramifications of the software. I used to teach computer programming and I’ve fed some of my assignment prompts into the chat software and it came up with perfectly executable code for every one of them. When I graded their assignment, students didn’t just turn in the programs, we had a one on one demo and they had to explain their code and reasons for doing it the way they did. That would still work now.

 

[faberryman]

It would be trivial to train an off-the-shelf industrial robot to type on a typewriter or write in cursive.

I do things like that while I am washing prints just so I don't get bored.

 

[Cholentpot]

Anyone willing to fake evidence can find a way to do it, even if it means having someone else with the proper skills perform the work.

Client hires a film photographer to get evidence. Photos are processed and notarized and handed in as evidence.

It would be trivial to train an off-the-shelf industrial robot to type on a typewriter or write in cursive.

Right yes. I'll do that after lunch.

I do things like that while I am washing prints just so I don't get bored.

I trained my dog to write cursive you know...

 

[BradS]

Right yes. I'll do that after lunch.

There's no need. It's been already done. Having an industrial robot write cursive was a common parlor trick one often saw at trade shows a decade ago.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

In my opinion, there are multiple levels of consideration to take on:

1. The Photoshop vs Chemical was a philosophical variation on tools used within the photographic community. This is computer code-generated "art" vs human inspiration, regardless of tools used.

2. The majority of apologists arguments that I have read for AI generated art can ultimately be reduced to a new "level of convenience" for the user (i.e., laziness) "Gee, I don't even have to drag my slacker ass off the couch to be an artist! How wonderful." It's kind of the ultimate consumation of the old jokes about automatic cameras that will eventually load themselves, venture forth, compose and shoot the image and hand you the image, only this time the camera keeps the rights to the images created.

3. The issue of Copyright and transparency loom large. I seriously doubt many people read or comprehend the Terms of Service on ChatGPT:



This is an existential threat to the concept of Human Creativity, probably due to human nature, as outlined in point #2 above.

The copyright issue could be dealt with by companies like Getty Images who sell stock photos already. If their stock photos are combined to create AI images, the originators could be paid a fee by the same stock photo companies. There would be no copyright violations. Companies and individuals who grab stuff off the web to create an AI image would be open to lawsuit. I'll bet these companies are already drawing up the legal paperwork to support this.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Well now that photography can do itself and win competitions, there’s little more to do than handwringing!

This was the point I've always argued about Photoshop. Too many were cavalier about it's editing prowess and it's ability to create something from nothing. Now with AI, the chicken's come home to roost. Photographers are going to lose their jobs to AI computer specialists. Many hobby photographers are going to say, "Why bother?" and dump their cameras.

 

[Sirius Glass]

This was the point I've always argued about Photoshop. Too many were cavalier about it's editing prowess and it's ability to create something from nothing. Now with AI, the chicken's come home to roost.

I agree.

Photographers are going to lose their jobs to AI computer specialists. Many hobby photographers are going to say, "Why bother?" and dump their cameras.

I do not think anyone is going to quit photography because of AI.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

I agree.


I do not think anyone is going to quit photography because of AI.

MY 55+ community has a photo club that competes once a year with other 55+ communities here in NJ. A few years ago, someone used the neon editing tool that makes the edges look neonish. Just click on the button in Photoshop. The judge didn;t know about the PS feature, was impressed, and awarded third place. All the members of my club were ticked off about it.

If entrants can start to use AI to produce all kinds of terrific pictures, why would anyone be interested in taking pictures with a camera and entering their ho-hum photo into the contest? Who would bother submitting their conventional photo for critique on photo forums?

 

[Sirius Glass]

MY 55+ community has a photo club that competes once a year with other 55+ communities here in NJ. A few years ago, someone used the neon editing tool that makes the edges look neonish. Just click on the button in Photoshop. The judge didn;t know about the PS feature, was impressed, and awarded third place. All the members of my club were ticked off about it.

If entrants can start to use AI to produce all kinds of terrific pictures, why would anyone be interested in taking pictures with a camera and entering their ho-hum photo into the contest? Who would bother submitting their conventional photo for critique on photo forums?

I stopped going to camera clubs and of course first I stopped competing in camera clubs' monthly competitions. First of all I did learn a lot from the camera clubs' critique of the work of others and myself. After a while, I had won fairly often, I realized that

1. For me to win, others had to go home losers. I did not need the ego boost.
2. Some of the judges, judged on weak or faulty criteria.

So I gave up on camera clubs decades ago.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

I stopped going to camera clubs and of course first I stopped competing in camera clubs' monthly competitions. First of all I did learn a lot from the camera clubs' critique of the work of others and myself. After a while, I had won fairly often, I realized that

1. For me to win, others had to go home losers. I did not need the ego boost.
2. Some of the judges, judged on weak or faulty criteria.

So I gave up on camera clubs decades ago.

Camera clubs are social too just as photo forums are.

 

[Pieter12]

I agree.


I do not think anyone is going to quit photography because of AI.

No, but many who earn a living from photography will either have to embrace AI as part of their services (like so many had to learn or farm out retouching when Photoshop hit its stride) or see their income decline quite a bit. Ironically, photojournalists who in theory should be the least vulnerable, might find themselves competing with smartphone-armed kids using AI to create news images.

 

[Sirius Glass]

No, but many who earn a living from photography will either have to embrace AI as part of their services (like so many had to learn or farm out retouching when Photoshop hit its stride) or see their income decline quite a bit. Ironically, photojournalists who in theory should be the least vulnerable, might find themselves competing with smartphone-armed kids using AI to create news images.

I agree.

 

[warden]

What's different about AI? There's much talk about the recent Sony award, and some of what's being said reminds me of the pushback from "purists" (for lack of a better term) against PS. A pushback that to my eye was much more virulent 20 years ago and seems to have largely subsided at this point.

It’s evolution (Photoshop) vs revolution (AI).

 

[warden]

I do not think anyone is going to quit photography because of AI.

But perhaps some (many) young people will never start. Just a guess.

 

[Cholentpot]

No, but many who earn a living from photography will either have to embrace AI as part of their services (like so many had to learn or farm out retouching when Photoshop hit its stride) or see their income decline quite a bit. Ironically, photojournalists who in theory should be the least vulnerable, might find themselves competing with smartphone-armed kids using AI to create news images.

Right on.

Adobe may include some clever AI tools that make photoshop easier to use.

 

[koraks]

Many hobby photographers are going to say, "Why bother?" and dump their cameras.

Is there a requirement somewhere that dictates we need to maximize the number of amateur photographers?
If 80% of the amateur photographers transition to amateur AI-image makers/selectors, I doubt we'll lose much in the end. We trade a truckload of uninteresting photography for a truckload of uninteresting AI imagery. People with time on their hands will still have a way to do something they consider fun with that time.

Much of the response to AI is just plain conservatism, based on the implied notion that it's best if things remain the way they are. Well, too bad - panta rhei.

 

[Kino]

The copyright issue could be dealt with by companies like Getty Images who sell stock photos already. If their stock photos are combined to create AI images, the originators could be paid a fee by the same stock photo companies. There would be no copyright violations. Companies and individuals who grab stuff off the web to create an AI image would be open to lawsuit. I'll bet these companies are already drawing up the legal paperwork to support this.

Photographer Sues Getty Images For $1 Billion For Claiming Copyright On Photos She Donated To The Public

Highsmith-v-Getty-Images (PDF) Highsmith-v-Getty-Images (Text)

www.techdirt.com

This Getty Images? Good luck with your royalty checks...

 

[nmp]

Is there a requirement somewhere that dictates we need to maximize the number of amateur photographers?
If 80% of the amateur photographers transition to amateur AI-image makers/selectors, I doubt we'll lose much in the end. We trade a truckload of uninteresting photography for a truckload of uninteresting AI imagery. People with time on their hands will still have a way to do something they consider fun with that time.

Much of the response to AI is just plain conservatism, based on the implied notion that it's best if things remain the way they are. Well, too bad - panta rhei.

Plus most people take photographs because they enjoy it, not so they can go to a club and show off to win prizes. So throwing away your camera because someone made a "better" picture than you with AI does not make any sense. I think amateurs will be fine. I can see the commercial/fashion photographers (and their models) can be affected significantly if some of their work gets replaced by AI based content. Some of that is already been done.

:Niranjan.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Photographer Sues Getty Images For $1 Billion For Claiming Copyright On Photos She Donated To The Public

Highsmith-v-Getty-Images (PDF) Highsmith-v-Getty-Images (Text)

www.techdirt.com

This Getty Images? Good luck with your royalty checks...

This has nothing to do with my point and the questions raised by other about AI violating copyright laws. Photographers can legally create AI photos using photos furnished by stock photo companies who have a huge reservoir of pictures of all kinds. These stock companies can make their libraries available for a fee and reimburse the original photo owners just as they are doing now when their pictures are purchased. AI doesn't have to depend on "stealing" images from the public and open web and violating copyright laws. I'd give it a few short weeks at most before you see advertisements from stock companies providing this exact service.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Plus most people take photographs because they enjoy it, not so they can go to a club and show off to win prizes. So throwing away your camera because someone made a "better" picture than you with AI does not make any sense. I think amateurs will be fine. I can see the commercial/fashion photographers (and their models) can be affected significantly if some of their work gets replaced by AI based content. Some of that is already been done.

:Niranjan.

It's not that you're competing with others. You're competing with yourself. Why bother shooting with a camera in the cold when you can sit comfortably in an armchair and create better photos? Or even if you still want to capture the original images such as from a trip you took, why bother buying and using expensive cameras when AI will take a so-so photo shot on your cellphone and turn it into a shot that surpasses a D850 and two hours of editing with Photoshop? I don't know if I;d want to buy stock in Nikon right now.

 

[Kino]

just as they are doing now when their pictures are purchased.

Oh but it does directly have to do with your point when the entity simply takes the photos and attempts to charge for them as their intellectual property. What gives the new AI generated images any more protection than duly copyrighted material simply taken?

Believe as you wish, but you're not going to convince me that this will work out to anyone's advantage other than the huge conglomerates.