Can You Compete With Google?

Discussion in 'Ethics and Philosophy' started by ReginaldSMith, Jun 20, 2018.

  1. ReginaldSMith

    ReginaldSMith Subscriber

    Messages:
    527
    Joined:
    May 14, 2018
    Location:
    Arizona
    Shooter:
    35mm
    https://www.theverge.com/2017/7/14/15973712/google-ai-research-street-view-panorama-photo-editing

    Google's AI software was easily able to tackle making photographs out of crap, and able to compete with human photographers. This is just the first baby steps of what AI can do, and what Google will be able to do with the jillions of photos people are storing on their cloud.

    Companies who sell stock will soon find themselves competing with a Google automaton that can generate any "photo" in a nanosecond at well, no cost really. For example, my wife buys stock all the time for her work. She typically enters a long list of keywords to help narrow the search of course. It won't be long before those keywords will simply be fed into Google's "photo-maker" and in a nanosecond, a photo will appear for a fraction of the cost of stock. Who cares? Publishers won't care, fashion magazines won't care, only the lowly guy who used to making a living shooting pictures. It will be hailed as massive progress of course, a huge boon to the publishing industry.

    Of course, this will lead to a new, highly touted branch of "photography" wherein um, *cough* 'photographers' sit in front of a Google app typing in keywords as an artist would stroke his brush, creating new masterpieces - no clumsy cameras needed, thank you!
     
  2. OP
    OP
    ReginaldSMith

    ReginaldSMith Subscriber

    Messages:
    527
    Joined:
    May 14, 2018
    Location:
    Arizona
    Shooter:
    35mm
    And then this: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/technol...ts-photos-as-animals-with-creepy-results.html

    What's fascinating is that none of the reportage even attempts to read between the lines. They just accept prima facie that all this "fun stuff" is why Google spends billions of dollars a year developing AI. No one reasons, imagines, guesses, or predicts what the world's most nefarious company might do with this behind the closed door.
     
  3. OP
    OP
    ReginaldSMith

    ReginaldSMith Subscriber

    Messages:
    527
    Joined:
    May 14, 2018
    Location:
    Arizona
    Shooter:
    35mm
    Last edited: Jun 20, 2018
  4. faberryman

    faberryman Subscriber

    Messages:
    2,541
    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2016
    Location:
    Nashville
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    I thought the stock photo business was dead already.
     
  5. OP
    OP
    ReginaldSMith

    ReginaldSMith Subscriber

    Messages:
    527
    Joined:
    May 14, 2018
    Location:
    Arizona
    Shooter:
    35mm
    Nope.
     
  6. slackercrurster

    slackercrurster Member
    Ads Enabled

    Messages:
    435
    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2017
    Location:
    L.A. - NYC - Rustbelt
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    OP...I don't use Google like that. Google helps me with exposure of my work.
     
  7. jnanian

    jnanian Advertiser Advertiser
    Ads Enabled

    Messages:
    25,237
    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2003
    Location:
    paswonquitte
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    the trick is not to upload imags to the web
    and if you do, tag them all NSFW
     
    Last edited: Jun 23, 2018
  8. Sirius Glass

    Sirius Glass Subscriber
    Ads Enabled

    Messages:
    27,880
    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2007
    Location:
    Southern California
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    Groups:

    +1*1023!!!
     
  9. moose10101

    moose10101 Member
    Ads Enabled

    Messages:
    846
    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2004
    Location:
    Maryland, US
    Shooter:
    Medium Format
    It’s just pinin’ for the fjords.
     
  10. TheRook

    TheRook Member
    Ads Enabled

    Messages:
    351
    Joined:
    May 18, 2016
    Location:
    Philadelphia
    Shooter:
    35mm
    Have a closer look at the annoying advertisement brochures you get in the mail. You will see many examples of stock photos being used.
     
  11. moose10101

    moose10101 Member
    Ads Enabled

    Messages:
    846
    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2004
    Location:
    Maryland, US
    Shooter:
    Medium Format
    The stock business still exists, but the possibility of making decent money from it has shrunk drastically.
     
  12. OP
    OP
    ReginaldSMith

    ReginaldSMith Subscriber

    Messages:
    527
    Joined:
    May 14, 2018
    Location:
    Arizona
    Shooter:
    35mm
    My wife is in publishing for 35 years. She used to pay $1500 - $2500 for a photo for a book cover. Today, she pays less than $50 for the same thing.
     
  13. jvo

    jvo Subscriber
    Ads Enabled

    Messages:
    779
    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2008
    Location:
    left coast of east coast
    Shooter:
    Medium Format
    as we get ever larger corporate behemoths looking to do it cheaper, people are fodder - when the elephant rolls over, some get crushed... , maybe they'll even say " oops!":ninja:
     
  14. blockend

    blockend Member
    Ads Enabled

    Messages:
    3,788
    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2010
    Location:
    northern eng
    Shooter:
    35mm
    That's commercial photography in a nutshell. There are undoubtedly people out there who have monetised the photographic image to their advantage in the digital age, but the majority are not photographers.
     
  15. jtk

    jtk Subscriber
    Ads Enabled

    Messages:
    1,570
    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2007
    Location:
    Albuquerque, New Mexico
    Shooter:
    35mm


    Your wife isn't the enemy, though she's probably not helping photographers. Some photographers have agents and some agents find good assignments. The work is still out there, even though everybody thinks they're a photographer today. Saw that coming decades ago when architects generally lowered their standards for photographic work, accepting their own snaps.

    I know people who are well-paid to make photos. They are called "professional photographers."

    I think submitting photos to stock companies is a ripoff: some alleged "photographers" represent themselves as stock companies in order to make money off real, if misguided, photographers.
     
  16. OP
    OP
    ReginaldSMith

    ReginaldSMith Subscriber

    Messages:
    527
    Joined:
    May 14, 2018
    Location:
    Arizona
    Shooter:
    35mm
    My wife is just a cog in publishing. She doesn't drive prices, the publishers do. When they create a budget for a new book, art direction gets a portion of the budget. When photography was more rare, the budgets had to reflect the market and pictures had a lot of value. As I said, up to $2500 for limited rights to a premium photograph. But when micro-stock boom hit the marketplace and every owner of a digital camera became a stock photographer, the volume of images in the market exploded geometrically and the flood drove prices down to pennies. "Commodification" had hit photography and the injured parties were those who had made their living with superb photographs.
     
  17. jtk

    jtk Subscriber
    Ads Enabled

    Messages:
    1,570
    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2007
    Location:
    Albuquerque, New Mexico
    Shooter:
    35mm

    Don't know what a "premium photograph" is, except use of that label means specifically that IS is a commodity. Basic marketing/economics. Seeing somebody as a "cog" makes them a commodity as well.

    I doubt many self-respecting photographers have ever looked to book covers for their income... And I doubt many worthwhile publishers or their authors want stock photos anywhere in their work. Self respecting photographers want credit more than money from book covers, they make their money elsewhere.
     
    Last edited: Jul 3, 2018
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies. If you have a Photrio account, please log in (and select 'stay logged in') to prevent recurrence of this notice.